Search

Abstract Conducting clinical trials of Chinese medicines (CM) in hospitals presents challenges for researchers. The success of hospital-based CM clinical trials may be influenced by the protocol design, including the maintenance of CM theory in compliance with scientific rigour and hospital guidelines and justified treatment approaches with results that can translate into clinical practice. Other influences include personnel and resources such as a dedicated team open to CM with an established research culture and the ability to maximise participant recruitment. This article identifies the key challenges and limitations of conducting CM clinical trials in Australian hospitals.

Abstract Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) impairs quality of life and leads to premature mortality. COPD sufferers experience progressive deterioration of lung function and decreased ability to undertake day-to-day activities. Ginseng has been used for thousands of years in Chinese medicine for respiratory symptoms. Several controlled clinical trials using ginseng for COPD have shown promising clinical effect, however these studies were generally small and with some potential bias, prompting the need for rigorously designed studies. Aim The objective of this study is to evaluate the therapeutic value and safety profile of a standardised root extract of Panax ginseng C.A Meyer (ginseng) for symptomatic relief, with a focus on quality of life (QoL) improvements in individuals with moderate (Stage II) COPD FEV1/FVC < 0.7 and FEV1 50% - 80% predicted. Methods This paper describes the design of a randomised, multi-centre, double-blind, placebo controlled, two-armed parallel clinical trial. Two trial sites in Melbourne Australia will proportionately randomise a total of 168 participants to receive either ginseng capsule (100 mg) or matching placebo twice daily for 24 weeks. The primary outcomes will be based on three validated QoL questionnaires, St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT). Secondary outcomes are based on lung function testing, relief medication usage and exacerbation frequency and severity. Safety endpoints include blood tests and adverse event reporting. Intention-to-treat will be applied to all data analyses. Discussion Findings from this study may lead to new therapeutic development for chronic respiratory diseases, particularly COPD. This protocol may also guide other investigators to develop quality herbal medicine clinical trials in the future. Trial registration Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12610000768099

Objectives:Bupleurum chinense (BC; Radix Bupleuri) formulae are widely used in herbal medicine clinical practice for major depressive disorder (MDD). This study provides an up-to-date and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of BC formula for MDD. Design: Randomized controlled trials were retrieved from English and Chinese databases, from their inceptions to March 2019. Included studies compared BC formula alone or as integrative medicine to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants. Studies included adults 18–65 years of age. People with other types of depression or physical comorbidities, such as poststroke depression, bipolar, and other mental or physical disorders, were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA software. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was also conducted to assess the quality of evidence. Results: Thirty studies compared BC formula to antidepressants and 25 studies compared BC formula plus antidepressants to antidepressants alone. BC formula was more effective than antidepressants at improving depression severity measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.52 to −0.18, I2 = 81.2%). Integrative use of BC formula plus SSRIs was also superior to SSRIs alone at improving HRSD scores (SMD −1.03, 95% CI −1.43 to −0.62, I2 = 94.2%). However, heterogeneity of the included studies was high and quality was low. The total number and severity of adverse events in the BC formula groups were less than that in the antidepressant groups. Conclusions: BC formula alone or given as integrative medicine with antidepressants reduced depression severity. However, the evidence is low quality and at risk of bias. Well-designed studies are needed to validate the results we identified in this review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Panax ginseng is one of the most frequently used herbs in the world. Numerous trials have evaluated its clinical benefits. However, the quality of these studies has not been comprehensively and systematically assessed. We reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Panax ginseng to evaluate their quality and risk of bias. We searched four English databases, without publication date restriction. Two reviewers extracted details about the studies' methodological quality, guided by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and its extension for herbal interventions. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Of 475 potentially relevant studies, 58 met our inclusion criteria. In these 58 studies, 48.3% of the suggested CONSORT checklist items and 35.9% of the extended herbal items were reported. The quality of RCTs published after the CONSORT checklist improved. Until 1995 (before CONSORT) (n = 4), 32.8% of the items were reported in studies. From 1996-2006 (CONSORT published and revised) (n = 30), 46.1% were reported, and from 2007 (n = 24), 53.5% were reported (p = 0.005). After the CONSORT extension for herbal interventions was published in 2006, RCT quality also improved, although not significantly. Until 2005 (n = 34), 35.2% of the extended herbal items were reported in studies; and from 2006 onwards (n = 24), 37.3% were reported (p = 0.64). Most studies classified risk of bias as "unclear". Overall, the quality of Panax ginseng RCT methodology has improved since the CONSORT checklist was introduced. However, more can be done to improve the methodological quality of, and reporting in, RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]