A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis about the Efficacy and Safety of <i>Tripterygium wilfordii</i> Hook F in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Wang, Hai-long; Zhao, Qi; Li, Wei; Zhu, Hua-chao; Lv, Liu; Zhu, Zhen-hong; Wang, Xi-xi; Yang, Zheng-zheng; Ma, Yu-cao; Liu, Ming-xuan; Wang, Yi-wen; Lai, Hezheng; Liu, Chun-ping; Yang, Yu-zheng

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3181427

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Ethical Approval Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Chinese Herbal Medicine for Rheumatic Diseases

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 3181427 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3181427

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis about the Efficacy and Safety of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Hai-long Wang,¹Qi Zhao,^1,2Wei Li,¹Hua-chao Zhu,¹Liu Lv,¹Zhen-hong Zhu,¹Xi-xi Wang,³Zheng-zheng Yang,⁴Yu-cao Ma,¹Ming-xuan Liu,⁵Yi-wen Wang,⁵and Hezheng Lai² et al.

Academic Editor: Jing Luo

Received09 Nov 2021

Revised22 Mar 2022

Accepted12 Apr 2022

Published10 May 2022

Abstract

Objective. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of various conventional synthetic DMARDs, including Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF) for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by network meta-analysis. Methods. We retrieved the related literature from online databases and supplemented it by using a manual retrieval method. Data was extracted from the literature and analyzed with STATA software. Results. A total of 21 trials (5,039 participants) were identified. Assessment of ACR20 response found that TwHF combined with methotrexate (MTX) had the greatest probability for being the best treatment option among the treatments involved, while TwHF used singly was second only to TwHF combined with MTX. Assessment of ACR50 response found that TwHF combined with MTX ranked second in all treatment options after cyclosporine A (CsA) combined with leflunomide (LEF) and TwHF alone, followed by TwHF combined with MTX. Assessment of ACR70 response found that CsA combined with LEF ranked first, TwHF combined with LEF ranked second, TwHF combined with MTX ranked third, and TwHF used singly ranked fourth. In the safety analysis, TwHF had the least probability of adverse event occurrence, followed by TwHF combined with MTX, which ranked first and second, respectively. Conclusion. Compared with the current csDMARDs for treating RA, the efficacy of TwHF was clear, and TwHF combined with MTX performed well under various endpoints. In the future, large, rigorous, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of TwHF therapy on RA.

1. Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common systemic immune disease which is characterized by joint inflammation, destruction, and deformity associated with chronicity and a high rate of disability. Improvement in treatment, stopping progression, and optimizing quality of life are priorities in the field of rheumatology in China. Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF) refers to the dry root or root xylem of the celastraceae plant Tripterygium wilfordii, a widely used herb in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). In accordance with TCM theory, TwHF is considered a key herb for treating persistent rheumatoid arthritis, due to its strong efficacy in eliminating wind-damp and promoting blood circulation to dredge collaterals. In recent years, TwHF prepared by extracting the essence of the active components of Tripterygium wilfordii has been used in clinical practice to treat a variety of rheumatic immune diseases, including RA [1–4]. It is noted that TwHF has been found to possess toxicity and is associated with having adverse events, such as hepatorenal toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and hematologic toxicity. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a technique for comparing three or more interventions simultaneously in a single analysis by combining direct and indirect evidence and ranking the efficacy. Compared with traditional meta-analysis, NMA may assist in comparing the efficacy of multiple interventions for a disease more comprehensively, to provide more rigorous evidence through greater synthesis of information. There are many meta-analyses on TwHF in treating RA [5,6], but most are pairwise comparisons, which have limited ability to illustrate the individual differences among multiple disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). This study is distinguished as a NMA which includes new and recent studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of commonly used conventional synthetic DMARDs as both monotherapy and combination therapy for treatment of RA, including TwHF, methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide (LEF), sulfasalazine (SSZ), cyclosporine A (CsA), tacrolimus (FK506), minocycline (MINO).

2. Methods

2.1. Data Sources and Searches

This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We systematically searched the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, CNKI, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, and Wanfang Data from inception to February 28, 2020. We adopted a search method of subject words combined with free words, while manual retrieval was also performed to avoid omission. Searches included a combination of free text and Medline Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for “disease terms” with “drug names,” and were limited to published RCTs. For the English databases, we used free text terms, such as “Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F″, methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, cyclosporine A, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus (FK506), intramuscular gold, auranofin, minocycline, D-penicillamine, chlorambucil, “rheumatoid arthritis”, and “randomized controlled trials”. For the Chinese databases, free texts were used, such as “Lei gong teng”, “Lei Gong Teng Zhiji”, “Lei Gong Teng Duo Gan”, “Jia An Die Ling (MTX)”, “Lai Fu Mi Te (LEF)”, “Liu Dan Huang Bi Ding (SSZ)”, “Huan Bao Su A (CsA)”, “Ta Ke Mo Si (FK506)”, “Mi Nuo Huan Su (MINO)”, “Lin Chuang Yan Jiu (clinical research)”,“Lei feng shi guan jie yan (rheumatoid arthritis)”, “Sui Ji Dui Zhao Shi Yan (RCT)”.

2.2. Study Selection

2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria

Literature that met all the following requirements were included: Types of studies:(i)Randomized controlled trials of conventional synthetic DMARDs for treatment of RA, published in either English or Chinese language. Types of participants:(i)The subjects were diagnosed with RA in accordance with the 1987 Guidelines of the American Rheumatology Association [7] or the 2010 ACR/European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) Criteria [8]; without diagnosis of other autoimmune diseases or serious cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases; no restrictions on age, sex, race, or nationality. Types of intervention:(i)TwHF, MTX, LEF, SSZ, CsA, FK506, and MINO used singly or as a two-drug combination in the treatment of RA. TwHF includes both tripterygium glycoside tablet and tripterygium tablet, the two root preparations of TwHF that have shown therapeutic promise [9,10]. The time limit for intervention was ≥12 weeks. Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, folic acid, vitamins, calcium tablets, and low-dose hormones as adjuvant therapy during the treatment was not limited. Types of outcome measures:(i)Primary outcome: the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria ACR20 [11].(ii)Secondary outcomes: ACR50, ACR70, and incidence of adverse events. All literature studies on adverse events were included, inclusive of all types of adverse events;(iii)The analyses of outcomes were conducted on an intent-to-treat (ITT) basis, or modified ITT (number actually receiving treatment at baseline) if the number randomized to treatment was not reported.

2.3. Exclusion Criteria

(i)Publications where full text literature cannot be obtained;(ii)Studies where research data are incomplete or cannot be extracted for analysis;(iii)Interventions as herbs containing TwHF.

2.4. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

The literature screening and extraction were carried out by two researchers, respectively, according to the inclusion criteria for literature retrieval. After the preliminary screening of titles and abstracts, the full text was screened, and the literature inclusion and data extraction were carried out based on intentionality analysis. Finally, the data extracted was compared and sorted. Two authors independently evaluated the methodological quality of eligible publications by using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias [12] (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias). If there were differences, a third-party researcher was invited to assist the ruling.

2.5. Data Synthesis and Analysis

The primary outcome of this analysis was the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria: ACR20. The ACR20 is defined as a reduction by 20% or more, in the number of tender and swollen joints plus 20% improvement in at least three of the following five measures: pain, patient global assessment, physician global assessment, a score of physical disability, and blood acute-phase reactants. The secondary outcomes were ACR50, ACR70, and adverse events. The ACR50 is defined as an improvement of 50% or more in the number of tender and swollen joints, plus 50% improvement in at least three of the aforementioned five measures. The ACR70 is defined as an improvement of 70% or more in the number of tender and swollen joints, plus 70% improvement in at least three of the aforementioned five measures.

2.6. Network Meta-Analysis

Results are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all comparisons of interventions. Initially, traditional pairwise meta-analysis was performed by using a random-effects model. Then network meta-analysis was performed to compare different therapies by using a frequentist approach. We included multi-arm trials in the analysis by breaking multi-arm trials into separate two-arm trials. We employed a multi-variate random-effects meta-analysis model for each outcome separately, combining direct evidence for each comparison [13,14].

For each “loop” of treatment comparisons from three or more independent sources and for each outcome, we computed the difference between estimates from direct and indirect evidence on the log OR scale. Inconsistency was defined as disagreement between direct and indirect evidence with a 95% CI excluding 0. For each outcome, we estimated the probability of which intervention was the best for each outcome, the second best, the third best, and so on, from the ranked order of the treatments at each interaction. These ranking probabilities were used to calculate the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), which is expressed as percentage (100% for the best intervention, 0% for the worst intervention, and approximately 50% for equivalent interventions) [15].

2.7. Funnel Plot and Publication Bias

The difference between the observed effect size and comparison-specific summary effect for each study was calculated. This variable was then regressed on the standard error (SE), thus adding a simple linear regression line in the funnel plot. This method could help to visually determine if there is a publication bias in the results between small and large studies. We performed traditional and network meta-analysis by using Stata software (version 12.0, the StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA).

3. Results

The flow chart of studies considered for inclusion is shown in Figure 1. On the basis of the title and abstract, 113 publications were selected and analyzed in full text versions. Eventually, 21 publications were included in the systematic review, and the characteristics of the literature were extracted as Table 1. Figure 2 shows the network of all treatment comparisons analyzed according to ACR 20, 50, 70, and adverse events. All reviews followed the methods in the Cochrane Handbook, including standardized searches, inclusion criteria, and outcomes.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

3.1. Characteristics of Included Studies

Table 1 summarizes the clinical and methodological characteristics as well as the main outcomes of each trial. A total of 21 trials (5,039 participants) were identified, and the characteristics of the literature were extracted as shown in Table 1. The risk of bias assessments for the included trials is illustrated in Figure S2 and Figure S3. Most of the evidence was of moderate-to-good quality. All 21 RCTs mentioned the word “randomization”. Over half of the studies did not report adequate information about allocation sequence generation and allocation sequence concealment. Unblinded designs were used in over half of the trials included.

3.2. NMA Results

3.2.1. ACR20

In the evaluation of the ACR20 response, 21 studies were included, involving a total of 5039 patients, including a total of 12 kinds of interventions. The interventions were MTX, TwHF, TwHF combined with MTX, LEF, TwHF combined with LEF, SSZ, SSZ combined with MTX, CsA, CsA combined with LEF, FK506, MINO, and placebo (Figure S4A). Efficacy was evaluated by drawing cumulative probability diagram, probability efficacy ranking table (Table 2), and inverted triangle table (Table 3). According to the analysis results, TwHF combined with MTX had the greatest probability of the best efficacy among the treatments involved, and TwHF used singly ranked second (Figure S5A).

3.2.2. ACR50

In the evaluation of ACR50 response, 15 literature studies were included, involving 2,968 patients, including 11 interventions: MTX, TwHF, TwHF combined with MTX, LEF, TwHF combined with LEF, SSZ combined with MTX, CsA, CsA combined with LEF, FK506, and placebo (Figure S4B). The efficacy was evaluated by drawing a cumulative probability diagram, a probability efficacy ranking table (Table 2), and an inverted triangle table (Table S1). According to the analysis results, the efficacy of TwHF combined with MTX ranked second only to CsA combined with LEF in all treatment schemes, while TwHF alone ranked third in all treatment schemes, second only to TwHF combined with MTX (Figure S5B).

3.2.3. ACR70

In the evaluation of ACR70 response, 10 literature studies were included, involving 2,374 patients, including 11 interventions: MTX, TwHF, TwHF combined with MTX, LEF, TwHF combined with LEF, SSZ, SSZ combined with MTX, CsA, CsA combined with LEF, FK506 and placebo (Figure S4C). The efficacy was evaluated by drawing a cumulative probability diagram, a probability efficacy ranking table (Table 2) and an inverted triangle table (Table S2). According to the analysis results, CsA combined with LEF ranked first, TwHF combined with LEF ranked second, TwHF combined with MTX ranked third, and TwHF used singly ranked fourth (Figure S5C).

3.2.4. Adverse Events

In the analysis of incidence of adverse events, 13 literature studies were included, involving a total of 3,415 patients, including 11 interventions: MTX, TwHF, TwHF combined with MTX, LEF, TwHF combined with LEF, SSZ combined with MTX, CsA, CsA combined with LEF, FK506 and placebo (Figure S4D). Incidence of adverse events was evaluated by drawing a cumulative probability diagram, a probability efficacy ranking table (Table 2), and an inverted triangle table (Table S3). According to the analysis results, TwHF and TwHF combined with MTX, ranked first and second, respectively (Figure S5D).

3.2.5. Forest Plots

In this study, a forest plot was drawn to assess for inconsistency, as shown in Figure S6A through to S6D. With exception of the M-S-T closed loop with ACR20 as the endpoint, there was no obvious inconsistency in all other closed loops. After analyzing the literature included in the M-S-T closed loop with ACR20 as the endpoint, it is considered that the sources of inconsistency may include different treatment time, different drug doses, heterogeneity caused by allowable adjuvant drugs.

3.2.6. Publication Bias

In addition, this study also evaluated publication bias with funnel plots (Figure S7A through to S7D). The scatters in the 4 funnel plots were almost symmetrical visually, and occasionally a small number of scatters were slightly less symmetrical, indicating that the publication bias in the included studies was overall satisfactory.

4. Discussion

TwHF is considered one of the most effective traditional Chinese herbal medicines against rheumatoid arthritis. Extracts of TwHF have been used for hundreds of years in China to treat various symptoms and, over the past 30 years, extracts of TwHF have become a standard therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in China. An earlier meta-analysis on treating RA bone destruction with TwHF was conducted by the team, and the results showed that the TwHF group was superior to the positive drugs MTX and SSZ used in the control group in Van der Heijde modified total sharp score (mTSS), joint erosion (JE), and joint space narrowing (JSN) on X-ray films, with statistical differences (). In the aspects of mTSS, joint erosion, and joint space narrowing, TwHF is better than MTX and SSZ. The analysis results showed that TwHF can effectively delay the bone destruction process of RA [5]. Network meta-analysis is a further development and extension of traditional meta-analysis. The biggest advantage of NMA is that it can evaluate different interventions for the treatment of similar diseases for quantitative statistical analysis and comparison. In recent years, the number of NMAs published in various journals and magazines has increased to provide guidance for clinicians in choosing effective interventions. In a previous NMA analysis that was conducted on the efficacy and safety of using DMARDs singly represented by TwHF in the treatment of RA, we found that TwHF is safe and effective [6]. This study provides an updated evaluation based on the results of previous research and with additional interventions, including combined medications. Based on our results on ACR20 response, we found that TwHF combined with MTX had the greatest probability of having the best efficacy among the treatment schemes involved, and TwHF used singly was the second best in the scheme of rankings. The efficacy ranking from best performing to the least are listed as the following: 1^st rank TwHF combined with MTX, 2^nd rank TwHF, 3^rd rank CsA, 4^th rank CsA combined with LEF, 5^th rank FK506, 6^th rank SSZ combined with MTX, 7^th rank MINO, 8^th rank TwHF combined with LEF, 9^th rank MTX, 10^th rank LEF, 11^th rank SSZ, and 12^th rank placebo. Based on our results on ACR50 response, the analysis showed that TwHF combined with MTX ranked second only to CsA combined with LEF, while TwHF ranked third. The detailed ranking list is as follows: 1^st rank CsA combined with LEF, 2^nd rank TwHF combined with MTX, 3^rd rank TwHF, 4^th rank TwHF combined with LEF, 5^th rank SSZ combined with MTX, 6^th rank MTX, 7^th rank LEF, 8^th rank CsA, 9^th rank FK506, 10^th rank SSZ, and 11^th rank placebo. Based on our results on ACR70 response, the analysis showed that CsA combined with LEF ranked first, TwHF combined with LEF ranked second, TwHF combined with MTX ranked third, and TwHF used singly ranked 4^th. The detailed rankings are as follows: 1^st rank CsA combined with LEF, 2^nd rank TwHF combined with LEF, 3^rd rank TwHF combined with MTX, 4^th rank TwHF, 5^th rank CsA, 6^th rank LEF, 7^th rank SSZ combined with MTX, 8^th rank FK506, 9^th rank MTX, 10^th rank SSZ, and 11^th rank placebo. In the analysis of incidence of adverse events, we found the least possibility of incidence with TwHF used singly, followed by TwHF combined with MTX, ranking first and second, respectively. The details of the interventions are as follows: 1^st rank TwHF, 2^nd rank TwHF combined with MTX, 3^rd rank CsA combined with LEF, 4^th rank SSZ, 5^th rank CsA, 6^th rank MTX, 7^th rank LEF, 8^th rank SSZ combined with MTX, 9^th rank TwHF combined with LEF, 10^th rank FK506, and 11^th rank placebo. In conclusion, from the results of the current analysis it can be considered that compared with the DMARDs currently used to treat RA, TwHF has shown a clear efficacy in treatment of RA, and TwHF combined with MTX performed well under various endpoints. In the ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses, the analysis showed that the efficacy of combination therapy of TwHF was better than its monotherapy. In the ACR20 and ACR50 responses, both monotherapy and combination therapy of TwHF were found to have good efficacy. In analysis of the incidence of adverse events, we found the least possibility of incidence with TwHF used singly. This study also has some limitations. For example, due to the insufficient number of studies, it was not feasible to assess for different dosages of the same drug across different treatment schemes, which may impact the study’s results. In addition, some of the included literature studies do not explicitly mention details of randomization method or method of blinding; thus, there is a risk of publication bias. In clinical practice, TwHF is often considered to possess liver and kidney toxicity and to easily cause adverse events. While our study found that TwHF has little possibility of incidence in adverse events, we cannot completely exclude the possibility of publication bias or selective reporting. Thus further review after the publication of more rigorous, high-quality RCTs is warranted.

5. Conclusions

This NMA found that in assessment of ACR20 response, TwHF combined with MTX had the greatest probability of achieving the best efficacy among the treatment schemes involved, while TwHF used singly was ranked as second best. In assessment of ACR50 response, the efficacy of TwHF combined with MTX ranked second only to CsA combined with LEF, while TwHF used singly ranked third. In assessment of ACR70 response, CsA combined with LEF ranked first, TwHF combined with LEF ranked second, TwHF combined with MTX ranked third, while TwHF alone ranked fourth. In analysis of incidence of adverse events, the possibility of incidence ranked the lowest with TwHF used singly and the second lowest with TwHF combined with MTX. In conclusion, it can be considered that compared with the DMARDs currently used to treat RA, TwHF has a clear efficacy on RA. Among all treatments, the monotherapy of TwHF and the combination therapy of TwHF and MTX performed well at various endpoints.

In a previous study [6] we conducted an NMA analysis on the efficacy and safety of TwHF and traditional synthetic DMARDs monotherapy in RA. The results indicated that in the direct comparison, TwHF was better than sulphasalazine in ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 responses; TwHF was superior to placebo in ACR 20 and ACR 50 responses. In indirect comparison, TwHF was superior to MTX, LEF, FK506, MINO, and placebo in ACR 20 response. In the efficacy ranking, TwHF ranked first in ACR 20 and ACR 50 response, and was the preferred treatment. Also, in ACR 70 response, TwHF ranked second (57.8%), second only to LEF (69.6%), which confirmed its efficacy and safety in RA. In clinical practice, combination therapy is also our conventional treatment for RA. Therefore, in this study, based on the previous research, we performed an updated NMA on monotherapy and combination therapy of TwHF and conventional synthetic DMARDs in RA. The research results showed that the clinical protocol of TwHF combination therapy for RA is more in line with clinical practice and has more advantages than other clinical protocols of conventional synthetic DMARD drugs in RA. TwHF can be considered as a potential first-line DMARD for the treatment of RA, but high-quality randomized trial data are still needed to guide the use of TwHF in clinical RA treatment.

Ethical Approval

All analyses were based on previously published studies. As a result, ethical approval and patient consent are not relevant.

Disclosure

Chun-ping Liu and Yu-zheng Yang are co-correspondence authors. Hai-long Wang and Qi Zhao are co-first authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Chun-ping Liu and Yu-zheng Yang conceived and designed the study, and the two of them contributed equally to this work. Hai-long Wang and Qi Zhao wrote the paper, and the two of them contributed equally to this work. Yu-zheng Yang analyzed the data and performed the statistical analysis. Wei Li, Hua-chao Zhu, Liu Lv, Zhen-hong Zhu, Xi-xi Wang, Zheng-zheng Yang, Yu-cao Ma, Ming-xuan Liu, and Yi-wen Wang collected the data. Hezheng Lai provided revision of both the content and language expression of the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, NSFC (82174336) and NSFC Youth Science Fund (82104652).

Supplementary Materials

Figure S1: PRISMA-2009-Flow-Diagram-MS-Word: PRISMA flowchart. Figure S2: Risk of bias graph. Figure S3: Risk of bias summary. Figure S4: The cumulative probability diagram. A. With ACR20 as the endpoint. B. With ACR50 as the endpoint. C. With ACR70 as the endpoint. D. The analysis of adverse events. Figure S5: Forest plots. A. With ACR20 as the endpoint. B. With ACR50 as the endpoint. C. With ACR70 as the endpoint. D. The analysis of adverse events. Figure S6: Inconsistent assessment. A. With ACR20 as the endpoint. B. With ACR50 as the endpoint. C. With ACR70 as the endpoint. D. The analysis of adverse events. Figure S7: The publication bias. A. With ACR20 as the endpoint. B. With ACR50 as the endpoint. C. With ACR70 as the endpoint. D. The analysis of adverse events. Table S1: Inverted triangle table based on ACR50. Table S2: Inverted triangle table based on ACR70. Table S3: Inverted triangle table based on adverse events. Table S4: Search strategy. (Supplementary Materials)

References

Q. W. Lv, W. Zhang, Q. Shi et al., “Comparison of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F with methotrexate in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis (TRIFRA): a randomised, controlled clinical trial,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 1078–1086, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Z. Zhou, L. D. Zhao, H. Chen et al., “Comparison of the impact of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F and Methotrexate treatment on radiological progression in active rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year follow up of a randomized, non-blinded, controlled study,” Arthritis Research and Therapy, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 70, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Wang, N. Chen, L. Fang et al., “A systematic review about the efficacy and safety of tripterygium wilfordii Hook.f. preparations used for the management of rheumatoid arthritis,” Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2018, Article ID 1567463, 13 pages, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Lin, Y. Q. Zhang, Q. Jiang et al., “Clinical practice guideline for tripterygium glycosides/tripterygium wilfordii tablets in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 11, Article ID 608703, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Z. Zhu, X. C. Han, H. Z. Wang, Y. Z. Yang, and Y. Gao, “[Effect of Tripterygium Glycosides Tablets in treating rheumatoid arthritis:a systematic review and Meta-analysis],” Zhongguo Zhongyao Zazhi, vol. 44, no. 15, pp. 3358–3364, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. L. Wang, Q. Jiang, X. H. Feng et al., “Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F versus conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs as monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis,” BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 215, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. C. Arnett, S. M. Edworthy, D. A. Bloch et al., “The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 315–324, 1988.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Aletaha, T. Neogi, A. J. Silman et al., “2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism collaborative initiative,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 2569–2581, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Liu, H. Li, and X. Chen, “Effects of traditional Chinese medicine for invigorating spleen to resolve dampness and dredging collaterals on patients with rheumatoid arthritis and anemia,” Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 348–354, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. L. Tao, Y. Dong, and N. Z. Zhang, “A double-blind study of T2 (tablets of polyglycosides of Tripterygium wilfodii hook) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 399–395, 1987.
View at: Google Scholar
American College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Rheumatoid Arthritis Guidelines, “Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2002 Update,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 328–346, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
J. P. T. Higgins, D. G. Altman, P. C. Gotzsche et al., “The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials,” BMJ, vol. 343, Article ID d5928, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. R. White, J. K. Barrett, D. Jackson, and J. P. T. Higgins, “Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression,” Research Synthesis Methods, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 111–125, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. T. Higgins, D. Jackson, J. K. Barrett, G. Lu, A. E. Ades, and I. R. White, “Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies,” Research Synthesis Methods, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 98–110, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Chaimani, J. P. T. Higgins, D. Mavridis, P. Spyridonos, and G. Salanti, “Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 10, Article ID e76654, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Reece, M. C. Kraan, A. Radjenovic et al., “Comparative assessment of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, by dynamic enhanced magnetic resonance imaging,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 366–372, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Cohen, G. W. Cannon, M. Schiff et al., “Two-year, blinded, randomized, controlled trial of treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with methotrexate. Utilization of Leflunomide in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial Investigator Group,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1984–1992, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Goldbach-Mansky, M. Wilson, R. Fleischmann et al., “Comparison of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F versus sulfasalazine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 151, no. 4, pp. 229–240, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
V. Strand, S. Cohen, M. Schiff et al., “Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with placebo and methotrexate,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 159, no. 21, pp. 2542–2550, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Emery, F. C. Breedveld, E. M. Lemmel et al., “A comparison of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” Rheumatology, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 655–665, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. C. Kraan, R. J. Reece, E. C. Barg et al., “Modulation of inflammation and metalloproteinase expression in synovial tissue by leflunomide and methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Findings in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-design clinical trial in thirty-nine patients at two centers,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1820–1830, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. C. Kraan, B. M. de Koster, J. G. R. Elferink, W. J. Post, F. C. Breedveld, and P. P Tak, “Inhibition of neutrophil migration soon after initiation of treatment with leflunomide or methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: findings in a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial in fifteen patients,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 1488–1495, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Bao, S. Chen, Y. Gu et al., “Leflunomide, a new disease-modifying drug for treating active rheumatoid arthritis in methotrexate-controlled phase II clinical trial,” Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 116, no. 8, pp. 1228–1234, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
H. A. Capell, R. Madhok, D. R. Porter et al., “Combination therapy with sulfasalazine and methotrexate is more effective than either drug alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to sulfasalazine: results from the double-blind placebo-controlled MASCOT study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 235–241, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Haagsma, P. L. van Riel, A. J. de Jong, and L. B. van de Putte, “Combination of sulphasalazine and methotrexate versus the single components in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled, double-blind, 52 week clinical trial,” Rheumatology, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1082–1088, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Dougados, B. Combe, A. Cantagrel et al., “Combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, controlled, double blind 52 week clinical trial of sulphasalazine and methotrexate compared with the single components,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 220–225, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Smolen, J. R. Kalden, D. L. Scott et al., “Efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with placebo and sulphasalazine in active rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomised, multicentre trial. European Leflunomide Study Group,” Lancet, vol. 353, pp. 259–266, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Karanikolas, D. Charalambopoulos, A. Andrianakos, C. Antoniades, and N. Katsilambros, “Combination of cyclosporine and leflunomide versus single therapy in severe rheumatoid arthritis,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 486–489, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
D. L. Scott, J. S. Smolen, J. R. Kalden et al., “Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide: two year follow up of a double blind, placebo controlled trial versus sulfasalazine,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 913–923, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. E. Yocum, D. E. Furst, J. L. Kaine et al., “Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind trial,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 3328–3337, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kawai, T. Takeuchi, K. Yamamoto, Y. Tanaka, and N. Miyasaka, “Efficacy and safety of additional use of tacrolimus in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to DMARDs--a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial,” Modern Rheumatology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 458–468, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. R. Pillemer, S. E. Fowler, B. C. Tilley et al., “Meaningful improvement criteria sets in a rheumatoid arthritis clinical trial. MIRA Trial Group. Minocycline in Rheumatoid Arthritis,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 419–425, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Y. Long, Y. Liang, N. Li, H. M. Liu, and Y. L. Wang, “Clinical efficacy of tripterygium glycoside tablets in the treatment of elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Nei Mongol Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 72-73, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Q. Wang, “Observation on the efficacy of Tripterygium wilfordii combined with methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1678–1680, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. L. Zhao, Observation on the Efficacy and Safety of Tripterygium Wilfordiipolyglycoside Tablets in the Adjuvant Treatment of Active Rheumatoid Arthritis, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China, 2017.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Hai-long Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

393

Downloads

611

Citations