Efficacy and safety of cangfu daotan decoction as an adjuvant treatment of Diane-35 for polycystic ovary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveCangfu Daotan decoction is a classic traditional Chinese medicine formula that has been found to be beneficial for treating polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) in animal models. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Cangfu Daotan decoction as an adjuvant treatment to Diane-35 for PCOS in humans. MethodsSeven electronic databases were searched up to June 22, 2024, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated Cangfu Daotan decoction combined with Diane-35 versus Diane-35 alone for the treatment of PCOS. The effects of individual RCTs were combined via meta-analysis and were measured as relative risks (RRs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs). ResultsTwenty-five RCTs with a moderate to high risk of bias were included, involving 1845 patients with PCOS. Meta-analyses indicated that compared with Diane-35 alone, the combination of Diane-35 and Cangfu Daotan decoction significantly improved the response rate (RR 1.19, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 1.24), pregnancy rate (RR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.18 to 2.09), ovulation rate (RR 1.22, 95 % CI 1.11 to 1.35), and ovarian volume (WMD -1.43 cm3, 95 % CI -2.46 to −0.39). Cangfu Daotan decoction also significantly reduced the luteinizing hormone (LH) level, LH:FSH ratio, testosterone level, prolactin level, body mass index (BMI) and hirsutism and acne scores but had no significant effect on the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) level. All adverse events were mild and not related to Cangfu Daotan decoction treatment. ConclusionsThe findings suggest that Cangfu Daotan decoction, as an adjuvant therapy to Diane-35 for the treatment of PCOS, can reduce multiple sex hormone levels and BMI, relieve hyperandrogenism signs, and ultimately improve pregnancy outcomes, with good safety. The effect of Cangfu Daotan decoction on FSH remains uncertain. Due to limitations of risk of bias and heterogeneity, the quality of evidence was rated as moderate to very low.