Search

A fixed combination of Berberis aristata and Silybum marianum (Berberol) has been used by patients with dyslipidaemia. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of B. aristata and S. marianum (Berberol) on serum lipid levels compared to placebo in a meta-analysis based on randomised, controlled trials. The meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, using the PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, outcome) format, and it was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant studies. Placebo-controlled clinical studies involving adult patients with a condition of dyslipidaemia and receiving a fixed combination of B. aristata and S. marianum were included. Four randomised trials, including a total of 491 patients, were pooled in statistical analysis. According to the present meta-analysis, Berberol significantly lowered the low-density lipoprotein level, total cholesterol, fasting plasma glucose levels, and the Homeostatic Model Assessment index compared to placebo; however, its effects on the high-density lipoprotein level, triglyceride level, and body mass index were not statistically significant by the end of a 3-month treatment period. Berberol appeared to be safe, and it did not increase the levels of alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, and creatine kinase enzymes. Berberol is an effective and presumably safe complementary therapy for the treatment of dyslipidaemia; however, the evidence supporting its use is very limited. The optimum dose and duration of treatment are unclear. A comprehensive evaluation of efficacy and safety is required in further high-quality clinical studies involving larger patient populations.

Background and aim While many studies have discussed the different cannulation techniques used in patients with difficult biliary access, no previous meta-analyses have compared transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) to other advanced techniques. Therefore, we aimed to identify all studies comparing the efficacy and adverse event rates of TPS with needle-knife precut papillotomy (NKPP), the most commonly used technique, and to perform a meta-analysis. Methods The Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were searched for trials comparing the outcomes of TPS with NKPP up till December 2016. A meta-analysis focusing on outcome (cannulation success, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), post-procedural bleeding, and total adverse events) was performed. The population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) format was used to compare these cannulation approaches. Five prospective and eight retrospective studies were included in our meta-analysis. Results NKPP has a significantly lower success rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.50, P = 0.046; relative risk [RR] 0.92, P = 0.03) and a higher rate of bleeding complications (OR 2.24, P = 0.02; RR 2.18, P = 0.02) than TPS. However, no significant differences were found in PEP (OR 0.79, P = 0.24; RR 0.80, P = 0.19), perforation (risk difference [RD] 0.01, P = 0.23), or total complication rates (OR 1.22, P = 0.44; RR 1.17, P = 0.47). Conclusion While TPS has a higher success rate in difficult biliary access and causes less bleeding than NKPP, there are no differences in PEP, perforation, or total complication rates between the two approaches. We conclude that TPS, in the hands of expert endoscopists, is a safe procedure, which should be used more widely in patients with difficult biliary access.