Traditional Chinese Patent Medicine in the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese patent medicine compared with western medicine in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease using the Network Meta-analysis. This study retrieved relevant studies from 7 databases, and the retrieval time was from the establishment of each database to June 2022. After the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment, 47 studies were finally analyzed, involving 11 Chinese patent medicines. The results demonstrated that Chinese patent medicine intervention was superior to oral western medicine treatment in improving the patient’s condition as assessed by the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE), Activities of Daily Living (ADL), effective rate, and Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive section (ADAS-Cog). Particularly, the effect of Chinese patent medicine combined with western medicine intervention was prominent. Meanwhile, Chinese patent medicine intervention in AD did not significantly increase the risk of adverse reactions. The results of the Network Meta-analysis demonstrated that Chinese patent medicine combined with western medicine had statistically significant differences in the MMSE score, ADL score, effective rate, and ADAS-Cog score, compared with both western medicine alone and Chinese patent medicine alone. In terms of adverse reactions, the difference between Chinese patent medicine intervention and simple oral western medicine was statistically significant. The results of further ranking probability analysis demonstrated that Chinese patent medicine combined with western medicine intervention ranked first in terms of MMSE, ADL, effective rate, and ADAS-Cog. Additionally, oral Chinese patent medicine intervention alone ranked first in reducing adverse reactions. In the funnel plots of the MMSE, ADL, and effective rate, most studies were symmetrically distributed on both sides of the midline, where small sample effects and publication bias might exist to some extent. However, this conclusion still needs to be combined with clinical syndrome differentiation and treatment, and more large-sample, multi-center, high-quality studies are needed for further verification.