Objective To provide evidence for clinical practice by assessing the effectiveness and safety of Ligustrazine for primary nephrotic syndrome. Methods We searched MEDLINE (1966.1-2002.12), EMBASE (1975-2002.12), CBM (1979.1-2002.12), Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine/Cochrane Centre Database (CEBM/CCD, Issue 4, 2002) , Cochrane Library, and SCI (1985-2002.12) and handsearched 15 kinds of journals (including Journal of Nephrology et al) (1980-2003.2) for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Jadad score was used to assess the quality of RCTs. The outcomes of short term and long term effectiveness, and adverse effect of the treatment were analyzed by RevMan 4.1. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 675 patients met inclusion criteria. Jadad scores of each trial was 1 point. Meta-analysis of 4 studies showed that Ligustrazine had significant better short term effect [OR 4.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.76 to 10.19], lowered 24 h urine protein (OR -0.36, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.02), improved renal function [ creatinine level in children group: (OR -3.34, 95% CI -5.25 to -1.43), creatinine level in adult group: (OR -48.29, 95% CI -68.24 to -28.35)], and increased serum albumin level (OR 3.61, 95% CI 2.61 to 4.61). Whether Ligustrazine had long term side effect was not confirmed. No adequate evidence showed that Ligustrazine could reduce the relapse rate of primary nephrotic syndrome. Conclusions Meta-analysis of low quality RCTs suggest that Ligustrazine does work in primary nephritic syndrome in short term observation. No adequate evidence shows that Ligustrazine has severe side effect or can reduce the relapse rate of primary nephrotic syndrome. We can’t draw a conclusion that Ligustrazine is safe in primary nephrotic syndrome treatment.A rigorously designed, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial are required.
Objective To assess the cost-utility study of renal transplantation compared with nemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). Methods A prospective study of end-stage renal disease patients was followed up for 3 months after renal replacement therapy. The study population included 196 patients (renal transplant [RT] n=63, hemodialysis [HD] n=82 and continious ambulatory peritoneal dialysis [CAPD] n=51) from 6 hospitals of Sichuan province. Health-related quality of life was assessed by using the WHOQOL-BRIEF questionnaire. Utility scores were obtained so as to conduct CUA (cost-utility analysis). Costs were collected from financial department and by patient interview. Results The utility values were 0.539 9± 0.013 for RT, 0.450 8± 0.014 for HD, 0.512 2±0.099 for CAPD, respectively. The mean direct cost of the first three months of renal transplant was significantly higher than dialysis (RT and CAPD). Over 3 months, the average cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for patients after CAPD was lower than HD and RT. Compared to HD, incremental cost analysis showed that CAPD was more ecnomical than RT. Sensitive analysis showed that CAPD was more effective than RT when ΔQALY varied in the limit of 95% confidence interval. However, the cost-utility of RT vs HD and CAPD vs HD was varied with ΔQALY level. Conclusions Cost-utility analysis showed that CAPD was a more favorable cost-utility ratio when compared to RT at early stage RT vs HD and CAPD vs HD, but which cost-utility ratio is better, we can not draw a certain conclusion.