This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of combination therapy with Chinese and Western medicine versus Western medicine monotherapy in patients with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy. The analysis included 1,127 patients across multiple studies. The primary outcome was visual acuity, and secondary outcomes included whole blood high-cut and low-cut viscosity, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) symptom score, TCM symptom efficacy, and clinical efficacy.
The meta-analysis found that combination therapy was associated with superior effects on visual acuity (mean difference [MD] = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.07–0.11). Improvements were also seen in whole blood high-cut viscosity (MD = −0.55, 95% CI: −0.83 to −0.27) and low-cut viscosity (MD = −0.61, 95% CI: −1.12 to −0.11). TCM symptom score was reduced (MD = −2.29, 95% CI: −4.26 to −0.32), and TCM symptom efficacy was increased (odds ratio [OR] = 4.07, 95% CI: 1.37–12.10). Clinical efficacy also favored combination therapy (OR = 2.96, 95% CI: 2.08–4.21).
The authors note that all included studies had high or unclear risk of bias in at least two domains, and the quality of evidence across outcomes was low to moderate. Adverse events were not reported. The review suggests promising clinical application but emphasizes the need for higher-quality trials to confirm these findings. Clinicians should interpret the results cautiously given the methodological limitations.
View Original Abstract ↓
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of combination therapy with Chinese and Western medicine for non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR).
This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under registration number CRD420261357240. PubMed, China Knowledge Network, China Wanfang, and Embase databases were searched for literature on the combination of Chinese and Western medicines in the treatment of NPDR from the inception of each database. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies, and the data were analyzed using the RevMan 5.3 software for statistical analysis.
Six relevant studies (total n = 1,127) were included after rigorous screening. Risk of bias assessment revealed that all included studies had high or unclear risk in at least two domains. GRADE assessment indicated low to moderate quality of evidence across outcomes. Compared with Western medicine monotherapy, combination therapy showed superior effects on visual acuity (mean difference (MD) = 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07–0.11, I2 = 0%, five studies), whole blood high-cut viscosity (MD = −0.55, 95% CI: −0.83 to −0.27, I2 = 88%, four studies), whole blood low-cut viscosity (MD = −0.61, 95% CI: −1.12 to −0.11, I2 = 89%, four studies), Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) symptom score (MD = −2.29, 95% CI: −4.26 to −0.32, I2 = 85%, three studies), and TCM symptom efficacy (odds ratio (OR) = 4.07, 95% CI: 1.37–12.10, I2 = 71%, three studies). Publication bias was not detected (Egger’s test p = 0.18). Clinical efficacy (OR = 2.96, 95% CI: 2.08–4.21, I2 = 39%, six studies) was consistently favorable across studies.
The combination of Chinese and Western medicines in the treatment of NPDR can improve visual acuity, improve blood rheology, reduce the clinical symptoms of Traditional Chinese Medicine syndromes, increase the efficacy of TCM treatments, delay disease progression, alleviate the symptoms, and optimize patients’ quality of life, demonstrating remarkable effects and promising clinical application.