PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 23, 2025Frontiers in Pharmacology4 citationsOpen Access

Efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

View Full Paper
XGXin‐Yuan GuanYWYufan WuQJQiuyang Jia

Key Points

  • Chinese herbal medicine combined with conventional therapy shows promise in managing multiple sclerosis.
  • Key outcomes like the expanded disability status scale improved significantly, indicating effectiveness.
  • The review analyzed 28 randomized controlled trials involving 1,971 participants for comprehensive insight.
  • Despite some methodological quality concerns, findings suggest further investigation into Chinese herbal medicine is warranted.

Abstract

Background Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an incurable, chronic, disabling disease that primarily affects young adults. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is increasingly recognized as a major form of complementary and alternative medicine; however, there is a limited number of systematic analyses regarding its therapeutic effects on MS. Aim of the study This study aimed to evaluate whether CHM, when used alongside conventional treatment, offers additional therapeutic benefits for patients with MS, focusing on clinical efficacy and safety. Materials and methods We searched eight databases from their inception until July 2025 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving CHM therapy for MS. Key outcomes assessed included the expanded disability status scale (EDSS), annual relapse rate (ARR), neurological signs scores, clinical symptoms scores, and modified fatigue impact scale (MFIS). The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews, while quantitative synthesis was performed with RevMan (version 5.4.1) and Stata (version 18.0) software. This review has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (Registration No. CRD42024605890). Results This systematic review and meta-analysis included 28 RCTs involving a total of 1,971 participants. The combination of CHM and conventional therapy was superior to conventional therapy alone for individuals with MS. This was evidenced by a decrease in the EDSS (mean difference (MD) = −0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.96, −0.35; P 0.0001; MD = −0.65, ARR (relative risk (RR) = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.73; P = 0.0007), neurological signs scores (MD = −2.96; 95% CI: −4.52, −1.39; P = 0.0002), and MFIS (MD = −8.55; 95% CI: −10.20, −6.89; P 0.00001). Additionally, there was an improvement in clinical effects (RR = 1.25; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.32; P 0.00001). No serious adverse effect was reported. Conclusion Although the methodological quality of the included RCTs was relatively suboptimal, CHM therapy combined with conventional therapy manifests a promising effectiveness and safety for managing MS. Therefore, well-designed clinical studies are necessary to provide high-quality evidence. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024605890 , identifer CRD42024605890.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Guan et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d4725d31b076d99fa6b53fhttps://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1635833
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Modulation of the HMGB1/TLR4/NF-κB signaling pathway in the CNS by matrine in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis2021 · 51 citations
  2. 2“No evidence of disease activity”: Is it an aspirational therapeutic goal in multiple sclerosis?2020 · 27 citations
  3. 3The multiple sclerosis prodrome2021 · 132 citations
  4. 4Summary of evidence-based guideline: Complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis2014 · 186 citations
  5. 5RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials2019 · 32,821 citations