Background Hyperprolactinaemia is a common adverse effect of antipsychotics （APs）. The results of Peony-Glycyrrhiza decoction （PGD） as a potentially useful adjunctivetreatment for hyperprolactinaemia are inconsis...Background Hyperprolactinaemia is a common adverse effect of antipsychotics （APs）. The results of Peony-Glycyrrhiza decoction （PGD） as a potentially useful adjunctivetreatment for hyperprolactinaemia are inconsistent.Aim This meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials （RCTs） examined the effcacy and safety of adjunctive PGDtherapy for AP-induced hyperprolactinaemia.Methods English （PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO） and Chinese （Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data） databases were systematicallysearched up to 10 June 2018. The inclusion criteria were based on PICOS-Participants： adult patients with schizophrenia; Intervention： PGD plus APs; Comparison： APs plus placebo or AP monotherapy; Outcomes： effcacy and safety; Study design： RCTs. The weighted mean difference （WMD） and risk ratio （RR） along with their 95% CIs were calculated using Review Manager （RevMan） V.5.3 software.Results Five RCTs （n=450） were included and analysed. Two RCTs （n=140） were double-blind and four RCTs （n=409） reported ‘random’ assignment with specifc description. The PGD group showed a signifcantly lower serum prolactin level at endpoint than the control group （n=380, WMD： ？32.69 ng/mL （95% CI -41.66 to 23.72）, p〈0.00001, I2=97%）. Similarly, the superiority of PGD over the control groups was also found in the improvement of hyperprolactinaemia-related symptoms. No difference was found in the improvement of psychiatric symptoms assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale （n=403, WMD： -0.62 （95% CI -2.38 to 1.15）, p=0.49, I^2=0%）. There were similar rates of all-cause discontinuation （n=330, RR 0.93 （95% CI 0.63 to 1.37）, p=0.71, I^2=0%） and adverse drug reactions between the two groups. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, the level of evidence of primary and secondary outcomes ranged from ‘very low’ （14.3%）, ‘low’ （42.8%）, ‘modera展开更多
基金supported by the University of Macao(SRG2014-00019-FHSMYRG2015-00230 FHS+4 种基金MYRG2016-00005-FHS)the Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University(2016YFC0906302816713342014Y2-001052015BAI13B02)
文摘Background Hyperprolactinaemia is a common adverse effect of antipsychotics （APs）. The results of Peony-Glycyrrhiza decoction （PGD） as a potentially useful adjunctivetreatment for hyperprolactinaemia are inconsistent.Aim This meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials （RCTs） examined the effcacy and safety of adjunctive PGDtherapy for AP-induced hyperprolactinaemia.Methods English （PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO） and Chinese （Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data） databases were systematicallysearched up to 10 June 2018. The inclusion criteria were based on PICOS-Participants： adult patients with schizophrenia; Intervention： PGD plus APs; Comparison： APs plus placebo or AP monotherapy; Outcomes： effcacy and safety; Study design： RCTs. The weighted mean difference （WMD） and risk ratio （RR） along with their 95% CIs were calculated using Review Manager （RevMan） V.5.3 software.Results Five RCTs （n=450） were included and analysed. Two RCTs （n=140） were double-blind and four RCTs （n=409） reported ‘random’ assignment with specifc description. The PGD group showed a signifcantly lower serum prolactin level at endpoint than the control group （n=380, WMD： ？32.69 ng/mL （95% CI -41.66 to 23.72）, p〈0.00001, I2=97%）. Similarly, the superiority of PGD over the control groups was also found in the improvement of hyperprolactinaemia-related symptoms. No difference was found in the improvement of psychiatric symptoms assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale （n=403, WMD： -0.62 （95% CI -2.38 to 1.15）, p=0.49, I^2=0%）. There were similar rates of all-cause discontinuation （n=330, RR 0.93 （95% CI 0.63 to 1.37）, p=0.71, I^2=0%） and adverse drug reactions between the two groups. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, the level of evidence of primary and secondary outcomes ranged from ‘very low’ （14.3%）, ‘low’ （42.8%）, ‘modera
