Study (year of publication) |
Indication for use of intervention |
Treatment (dose and duration if available) |
Comparator (dose and duration if available) |
Tool(s) used to assess outcomes |
Outcome |
Improvement symptoms (yes / no) |
Percentage reductiona/improvement in symptoms (if available) |
Follow-up duration |
Traditional Chinese medicine (n=20) |
Li et al. (2015) [41] |
Renal function |
8 g TSF granules TID and ARB BID x 24 weeks |
8 g placebo TID and ARB BID x 24 weeks |
WHOQOL-BREF, DQOL |
UAER (μg/min) (pre vs post): 105.39±77.29 vs 88.37±108.46, p=0.021 |
Yes |
-16.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (UAER) |
6 months |
24 h urinary protein (g/24 h) (pre vs post): 1.12±0.75 vs 0.91±0.90, p=0.017 |
-18.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (24 h urinary protein) |
Ma et al. (2013) [43] |
Renal function |
150 mL ZSTL solution BID x 3 months |
10 mg benazepril QD x 3 months |
Radioimmunoassay, ELISA |
HbA1c ({fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}) (baseline vs mean change from baseline): 10.68 (8.48, 13.96) vs -4.29 (-5.85, -2.79), p<0.05. |
Yes |
-40.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (HbA1c) |
9 months |
UAER (μg/min) (baseline vs mean change from baseline): 211.52 (164.58, 243.89) vs -106.99 (-121.29, -85.55), p<0.05 |
-50.6{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (UAER) |
SCr (μmol/L) (baseline vs mean change from baseline): 87.17 (70.59, 110.25) vs -3.33 (-11.02, 2.15), p<0.05 |
-3.82{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (SCr) |
CCR (mL/min) (baseline vs mean change from baseline): 139.86 (129.58, 149.52) vs -9.22 (-13.42, -5.82), p <0.05 |
-6.59{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (CCR) |
Wang et al. (2012) [17] |
Renal function |
T1: TCM granuleb BID x 24 weeks. T2: TCM granuleb BID and 10 mg benazepril QD x 24 weeks. |
10 mg benazepril QD and TCM placebo TID x 24 weeks |
MDRD study equation, TCM assessing sheets |
eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) (pre vs post): T1: 45.26±10.12 vs 48.46±15.90, p<0.05. T2: 44.68±9.82 vs 48.31±17.50, p<0.05. |
Yes |
7.07{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (eGFR; T1), 8.12{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (eGFR; T2) |
6 months |
24 h proteinuria (mg/24 h) (pre vs post): T1: 725.98 vs 990.00, p<0.05. T2: 590.00 vs 453.50, p<0.05 |
36.4{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (proteinuria; T1), -21.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (proteinuria; T2) |
Urinary albumin/creatinine (mg/gCr) (pre vs post): T2: 0.30 vs 0.22, p<0.05 |
-26.7{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (urinary albumin/creatinine; T2) |
Hb (g/L) (pre vs post): T1: 127.31±18.47 vs 129.57±21.82, p<0.05 |
17.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (Hb; T1) |
Yu et al. (2017) [50] |
Renal function |
Acupuncture at Li4, ST36 and K13 acupoint QD x 3 months |
Sham acupuncture QD x 3 months |
NI |
SCr levels (mg/dL) (T vs C): baseline: 1.45 vs 1.67, p=0.1298. Post-intervention: 1.41 vs 1.65, p=0.0489. 3-month follow-up: 1.32 vs 1.81, p=0.0467 |
Yes |
-2.76{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (SCr; pre vs post), -9.00{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (SCr; pre- vs 3 months follow-up) |
6 months |
eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) (T vs C): Baseline: 51.85 vs 42.50, p=0.0855. Post-intervention: 54.50 vs 43.60, p=0.0470. 3-month follow-up: 59.90 vs 40.80, p=0.0191 |
5.11{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (eGFR; pre vs post), 15.5{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (eGFR; pre-intervention vs 3 months follow-up) |
hs-CRP (mg/dL) (T vs C): Baseline: 1.10 vs 0.79, p=0.4361. Post-intervention: 0.80 vs 0.90, p=0.8773 |
-27.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (hs-CRP pre vs post) |
Zhao et al. (2020) [52] |
Renal function |
Herbal granulec TID x 6 months |
Placebo granules x TID 6 months |
Dye-binding method, Cerebrospinal fluid protein test kit, Determiner L CRE kit |
SCr (μmol/L) (pre vs weeks 16, 20 and 24): 148.42±35.90 vs 130.19±29.79, 130.08±30.57, 130.78±32.55, p<0.05 |
Yes |
-12.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (SCr; pre vs 16 weeks), -12.4{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (SCr; pre vs 20 weeks), -11.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (SCr; pre vs 24 weeks) |
6 months |
Xiang et al. (2016) [47] |
Renal function |
QDDHG tablets BID and ARB (minimum dosage) x 12 weeks |
ARB tablets (minimum dosage) |
Guidelines for clinical research of Chinese medicine |
Albumin (mg/24h) (within treatment group, baseline vs 4 vs 8 vs 12 week): 85.30 (66.00, 176.30) vs 61.50 (49.00, 110.20), p<0.05 vs 51.00 (37.00, 90.00), p<0.05 vs 41.40 (29.00, 68.00), p<0.05 |
Yes |
-27.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (Albumin; 4 weeks), -40.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (Albumin; 8 weeks), -43.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (Albumin; 12 weeks) |
3 months |
Proteinuria (g/24h) (within treatment group, baseline vs 4 vs 8 vs 12 week): 0.20 (0.10, 0.30) vs 0.10 (0.10, 0.20), p<0.05 vs 0.10 (0.10, 0.20), p<0.05 vs 0.10 (0.10, 0.20), p<0.05 |
-50{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (Proteinuria; 4, 8, 12 weeks) |
Albumin/creatinine (mg/mol) (within treatment group, baseline vs 4 vs 8 vs 12 week): 20.70 (11.00, 30.50) vs 16.30 (8.10, 25.00), p<0.05 vs 15.00 (7.20, 20.60), p<0.05 vs 10.10 (5.60, 17.00), p<0.05 |
-21.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (albumin/creatinine; 4 weeks), -27.5{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (albumin/creatinine; 8 weeks), -51.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (albumin/creatinine; 12 weeks) |
Xu et al. (2016) [49] |
Renal function |
500 mg GS-Rb1 (ginseng extract) QD x 6 months |
Placebo tablets QD x 6 months |
ELISA |
Creatinine and urea level (T vs C): 6 months, p<0.01. 12 months, p<0.01 |
Yes |
– |
12 months |
Oxidative stress markers (T vs C): 6 months, p<0.01. 12 months, p<0.05 |
TNF-a level (T vs C): 6 months, p<0.05 |
Chen et al. (2013) [37] |
Proteinuria |
9.6 g of Shenqi particle TID x 48 weeks |
Routine care |
MDRD study equation |
Proteinuria (g/d) (pre vs post): 5.34±2.74 vs 2.04±2.15, p<0.001 |
Yes |
-61.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (proteinuria) |
12 months |
eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) (pre vs post): 84.6±27.0 vs 100.7±37.5, p=0.001 |
19.0{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (eGFR) |
Ge et al. (2013) [39] |
Proteinuria |
40 mg TwHF TID x 3 months, 20 mg TwHF TID x 3 months. |
160 mg valsartan capsules QD x 6 months |
Trichloroacetic acid method, Jaffe reaction, MDRD study equation, high-performance liquid chromatography |
Urinary protein (g/24 h) (pre vs 1 month, pre vs 3 months, pre vs 6 months): 4.99±2.25 vs 3.23±2.57, p<0.01. 4.99±2.25 vs 2.83±1.57, p<0.01. 4.99±2.25 vs 2.99±1.81, p<0.01 |
Yes |
-35.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (urinary protein; 1 months), -43.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (urinary protein; 3 months), -40.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (urinary protein; 6 months) |
6 months |
eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) (pre vs 6 months): 43.07±21.65 vs 38.71±23.66, p<0.05 |
-10.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (eGFR; 6 months) |
Li et al. (2020) [42] |
Proteinuria |
Huangkui capsule TID x 12 months |
Losartan potassium tablet QD and placebo capsules TIW x 12 months |
NI |
Proteinuria (mg/24 h) (pre vs post): 1238.9±667.4 vs 1008.8±1104.7, p<0.001 |
Yes |
-18.6{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (proteinuria) |
12 months |
Zhang et al. (2014) [51] |
Proteinuria |
T1: Huangkui capsule TID x 6 months. T2: Huangkui capsule TID and Losartan potassium tablet QD x 6 months. |
Losartan tablet potassium QD x 6 months |
Biuret method, sarcosine oxidase assay |
Proteinuria within T1 (pre vs 12 vs 24 weeks): 1045±420 vs 762±533, p<0.001 vs 537±409, p<0.001 |
Yes |
T1: -27.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pre vs 12 weeks), -48.6{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pre vs 24 weeks) |
6 months |
Proteinuria within T2 (pre vs 12 vs 24 weeks): 1073±439 vs 783±658, p<0.001 vs 529±509, p<0.001. |
T2: -27.0{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pre vs 12 weeks), -50.7{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pre vs 24 weeks). |
Xiong et al. (2020) [48] |
Proteinuria |
60 mg TWHF and 160 mg valsartan QD x 24 weeks |
160 valsartan QD x 24 weeks |
CKD-EPI equation |
Proteinuria (g/24 h) (T vs C, PP analysis): 3.16±0.62 vs 4.28±0.85, p<0.001 |
Yes |
PP: -26.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (proteinuria) |
6 months |
Serum albumin (g/L) (T vs C, PP analysis): 37.65±4.31 vs 33.59±4.56, p<0.001 |
PP: 12.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (serum albumin) |
Proteinuria (g/24 h) (T vs C, ITT analysis): 3.36±0.83 vs 4.52±1.06; p<0.001 |
ITT: -25.7{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (proteinuria) |
Serum albumin (g/L) (T vs C, ITT analysis): 36.91±4.42 vs 34.67±4.75, p=0.008 |
ITT: 6.46{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (serum albumin) |
Che-yi et al. (2005) [36] |
Uremic pruritus |
Acupuncture at Quchi (L11) acupoint TIW x 1 month |
Sham acupuncture TIW x 1 month |
Validated questionnaire |
Pruritus scores (pre vs post vs 3 months follow-up): 38.2±4.8 vs 17.3±5.5 vs 16.5±4.9, p<0.001 |
Yes |
-54.7{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pruritus scores; pre- vs post-intervention), -56.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pruritus scores; pre-intervention vs 3 months follow-up) |
3 months |
Gao et al. (2002) [38] |
Uremic pruritus |
Acupuncture at Quchi (L11) and Zusanli (ST 36) acupoint BIW x 1 month |
Sham acupuncture BIW x 1 month |
NI |
Number of patients (complete alleviation vs improvement vs no effect): 24 (70.6{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}) vs 9 (26.5{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}) vs 1 (2.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}) |
Yes |
– |
3 months |
Nahidi et al. (2018) [7] |
Uremic pruritus |
30 minutes of acupuncture, for six weeks, at the following acupoints: Sp6, Sp10, Lv3, Li4, Li11. |
30 minutes of sham acupuncture, for 6 weeks. |
VAS |
Pruritus scores (pre vs post): 9.87±0.35 vs 3.93±2.85, p<0.001 |
Yes |
-60.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pruritus scores) |
6 weeks |
Ono et al. (2015) [3] |
Fatigue, insomnia, itchiness, and pain |
Acupuncture QIW x 2 months |
Routine care |
VAS, EQ-5D |
Headache score (pre vs post): 17.1±26.1 vs 6.2±13.5, p<0.05. |
Yes |
-63.7{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (headache score) |
3 months |
Blurred vision score (pre vs post): 33.4±32.7 vs 17.0±22.2, p<0.05. |
-49.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (blurred vision score) |
Dizziness score (pre vs post): 13.0±21.4 vs 1.4±6.3, p<0.05. |
-89.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (dizziness score) |
Ear buzzing (pre vs post): 17.9±27.2 vs 8.0±14.7, p<0.05 |
-55.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (ear buzzing) |
Cervical pain (pre vs post): 37.7±39.1 vs 25.3±29.7, p<0.05 |
-32.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (cervical pain) |
Stiff shoulders (pre vs post): 29.9±28.6 vs 12.5±21.6, p<0.05 |
-58.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (stiff shoulders) |
Back pain (pre vs post): 38.5±33.7 vs 9.3±18.1, p<0.05 |
-58.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (back pain) |
Lower limb pain (pre vs post): 29.4±36.4 vs 17.1±23.3, p<0.05 |
-41.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (lower limb pain) |
Numbness in upper limb (pre vs post): 18.9±30.4 vs 4.0±29.5, p<0.05 |
-78.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (numbness in upper limb) |
Numbness in lower limb (pre vs post): 21.9±34.9 vs 11.0±26.2, p<0.05 |
-49.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (numbness in lower limb) |
Itchiness (pre vs post): 38.7±40.7 vs 29.3±31.5, p<0.05 |
-24.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (itchiness) |
Difficulty in sleeping (pre vs post): 34.8±36.9 vs 12.8±22.5, p<0.05 |
-63.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (difficulty in sleeping) |
Utility in treatment group (pre vs post): 0.66±0.15 vs 0.76±0.17, p<0.05 |
15.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (utility) |
Su et al. (2009) [44] |
QoL |
Infrared stimulation of Qihai (RN6), Kuamyuan (RN4) and Chungchi (RN3) TIW x 3 months |
Heat pad therapy to acupoints TIW x 3 months |
Heart rate variability analyser, WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire |
LF activity (pre vs post): 49.99±79.08 vs 131.71±214.36, p=0.01 |
Yes |
163{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (LF activity) |
3 months |
Fatigue index (pre vs post): 133.90±20.43 vs 121.71±32.68, p=0.02 |
-9.10{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (fatigue index) |
Psychological domain (pre vs post): 18.16±4.30 vs 19.39±0.72, p=0.02 |
6.77{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (psychological domain) |
Environmental domain (pre vs post): 29.87±4.04 vs 32.00±4.85, p=0.00. |
7.13{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (environmental) |
Wang et al. (2019) [45] |
Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway |
Qingshen granules TID x 3 months |
Placebo granules TID x 3 months |
ELISA |
Effective rates of TCM symptom (T vs C): 80{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} vs 60{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}, p=0.024 |
Yes |
– |
3 months |
eGFR (mL/min) (T vs C): 15.9±3.2 vs 14.0±4.0, p=0.019 |
17.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (eGFR) |
HIF-1𝛼 (ng/mL) (T vs C): 0.66±0.16 vs 1.39±0.17, p≤0.001 |
-61.4{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (HIF-1𝛼) |
Wnt1 (pg/mL) (T vs C): 314.2±85.8 vs 382.8±85.3, p=0.001 |
-16.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (Wnt1) |
𝛽-catenin (pg/mL) (T vs C): 416.5±13.6 vs 462.1±15.1, p ≤0.001 |
-10.0{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (𝛽-catenin) |
𝛼-SMA (KU/L) (T vs C): 20.5±3.1 vs 23.5±4.1, p≤0.001 |
-20.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (𝛼-SMA) |
E-cadherin (ng/mL) (T vs C): 2166.9±398.6 vs 2370.7±468.0, p=0.039 |
-15.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (E-cadherin) |
Wang et al. (2020) [46] |
Immune function |
Qingshen granules TID x 3 months |
Routine care |
Flow cytometry, ELISA |
CD4+/CD8+ T cell (pre vs post): 1.98±0.86 vs 1.58±0.72, p<0.05. |
Yes |
-20.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (CD4+/CD8+ T cell) |
3 months |
Th17 cell (pre vs post): 2.51±1.05 vs 1.70±0.83, p<0.01. |
-32.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (Th17) |
NF-κB p65 (pre vs post): 36.84±12.96 vs 24.86±1.97, p<0.05 |
-32.5{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (NF-κB p65) |
IL-17 (pre vs post): 28.62±13.53 vs 19.78±12.25, p<0.05 |
-30.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (IL-17) |
IL-6 (pre vs post): 77.13±20.54 vs 58.42±18.25, p<0.05 |
-24.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (IL-6) |
TNF-α (pre vs post): 110.34±23.76 vs 75.49±22.80, p<0.01 |
-31.6{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (TNF-α) |
TRAF6 (pre vs post): 4.94±1.82 vs 2.85±1.53, p<0.01 |
-42.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (TRAF6) |
FN (pre vs post): 93.42±20.36 vs 62.86±19.35, p<0.01 |
-32.7{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (FN) |
Col-IV (pre vs post): 36.85±14.58 vs 24.36±13.36, p<0.01 |
-33.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (Col-IV) |
Total effective rate (T vs C): 79.41{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} vs 67.12{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}, p<0.05. |
– |
Li et al. (2009) [40] |
Vascular endothelial function |
TBN tablets (gingko extract) TID x 8 weeks |
Routine care |
Chemical colorimeter, Radioimmunoassay, ELISA, Siemens Sequoia 512 color Doppler ultrasonography |
UAER (μg/min) (pre vs post): 153.30±63.28 vs 85.15±36.82, p<0.01 |
Yes |
-44.5{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (UAER) |
3 months |
SCr (μmol/L) (pre vs post): 120.76±17.83 vs 105.67±18.13, p<0.01 |
-12.5{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (SCr) |
NO (μmol/L) (pre vs post): 50.16±24.64 vs 70.65±28.71, p<0.01 |
40.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (NO) |
vWF ({fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}) (pre vs post): 182.05±64.13 vs 128.56±48.98, p<0.01 |
-29.4{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (vWF) |
BAID responsive change ({fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}) (pre vs post): 4.91±2.31 vs 6.78±3.89, p<0.01 |
38.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (BAID responsive change) |
Ayurveda (n=6) |
Alam et al. (2020) [53] |
Renal function |
Sativa oil QD and alpha-keto amino acid tablets TID x 3 months |
Alpha-keto amino acid tablets TID x 3 months |
Hemogram, renal function test, serum electrolyte test |
Hb{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (g/dL) (pre vs post): 8.84±1.31 vs 10.24±1.10, p<0.001 |
Yes |
15.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (Hb{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}) |
3 months |
24-h TUV (mL/day) (pre vs post): 1250.69±303.74 vs 1660.14±258.78, p<0.001 |
32.7{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (TUV) |
eGFR (mL/min) (pre vs post): 22.71±7.28 vs 42.42±17.38, p<0.001 |
86.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (eGFR) |
Fallahzadeh et al. (2012) [54] |
Renal function |
140 mg silymarin tablet QD x 3 months |
Placebo tablet QD x 3 months |
Jaffé method, ELISA MDA assay, MDRD study equation, nephelometry, high-performance liquid chromatography, mercury sphygmomanometer |
Urinary TNF-α (pg/mg) (change from baseline): -3.45 (-5.44 to -1.46), p<0.05 |
Yes |
– |
2 months |
Urinary MDA (nmol/mg) (change from baseline): -1.5 (-2.87 to -0.13, p<0.05 |
Serum MDA (μmol/L) (change from baseline): -3.43 (-6.02 to -0.83), p<0.05 |
Hoseini et al. (2019) [55] |
Renal function |
Camel milk BID x 3 months |
Routine care |
MDRD |
eGFR (pre vs post): 26.9±7.39 vs 31.45±8.99, p=0.001 |
Yes |
16.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (eGFR) |
3 months |
SCr levels (pre vs post): 2.58±0.71 vs 2.2±0.48, p=0.01 |
-14.7{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (SCr) |
BUN (pre vs post): 60.31±22.61 vs 44.38±14.29, p=0.0001 |
-26.4{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (BUN) |
Khajehdehi et al. (2011) [56] |
Renal function |
140 mg silymarin TID x 3 months |
Placebo tablet TID x 3 months |
ELISA |
Proteinuria (mg/24h) (pre vs post, patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy): 4328.7±3038.2 vs 2354.7±1800.1, p=0.001 |
Yes |
-45.6{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (proteinuria) |
2 months |
IL-8 (pg/mL) (pre vs post, patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy): 99.1±97.9 vs 43.6±55.0, p=0.002 |
-56.0{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (IL-8) |
TGF-β (pg/mL) (pre vs post, patients with overt type 2 diabetic nephropathy): 522.3±189.2 vs 397.3±55.2, p=0.006 |
-23.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (TGB-β) |
IL-8 (pg/mL) (pre vs post, patients with overt type 2 diabetic nephropathy): 41.4±50.3 vs 30.6±75.2, p=0.02 |
-26.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (IL-8) |
Makhlough et al. (2010) [57] |
Uremic pruritus |
0.03{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} capsaicin ointment QID x 4 weeks |
Placebo ointment QID x 4 weeks |
Uremic pruritus scoring questionnaire by Duo |
Pruritus score (T vs C): 2.5±2.5 vs 7.2±5.5, p<0.05 |
Yes |
-84.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pruritus score) |
|
Pingali et al. (2020) [58] |
Hyperuricemia |
T1:500 mg of beleric capsule taken QD. T2: 1000 mg of beleric capsule taken QD |
40 mg of Febuxostat taken QD |
Jaffe method, MDRD Study equation, Salbutamol challenge test, Ellman’s method, Chrono-log light transmittance aggregometry, Spectrometry, Colorimetric detection with Griess reagents |
SCr (pre vs post): group B: 1.86±0.32 vs 1.64±0.29, p≤0.005. Group C: 2.06±0.26 vs 1.56±0.24, p≤0.0001 |
Yes |
-11.70{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}±9.00 (SCr, group B), -24.42{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}±8.14 (SCr, group C). |
6 months |
eGFR (pre vs post): group B: 39.13±6.57 vs 45.96±11.14, p≤0.005. Group C: 34.78±5.34 vs 48.93±11.46, p≤0.0001 |
16.96{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}±14.87 (eGFR, group B), 40.39{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}±20.98 (eGFR, group C) |
Serum uric acid (pre vs post): Group B:8.10±0.67 vs 6.46±0.34, p≤0.0001. Group C: 8.54±0.64 vs 5.63±0.37, p≤0.0001 |
19.84{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}±6.43 (serum uric acid, group B), 33.88{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}±4.95 (serum uric acid, group C) |
Naturopathy (n=5) |
Khan et al. (2014) [60] |
Malnutrition |
Alpha-keto amino acid tablets TID x 3 months |
Placebo tablets TID x 3 months |
Blood tests |
Hb{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (g/dL) (T vs C): 9.39±0.87 vs 8.91±1.48, p<0.05 |
Yes |
19.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (Hb{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}) |
3 months |
FBG (mg/dL) (T vs C): 104.00±8.46 vs 113.78±14.31, p<0.001 |
-20.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (FBG) |
Blood urea (mg/dL) (T vs C): 66.07±19.29 vs 79.78±24.79, p<0.001 |
-38.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (blood urea) |
SCr (mg/dL) (T vs C): 2.83±1.10 vs 3.33±1.37, p<0.05 |
-39.5{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (SCr) |
24 h TUP (g/day) (T vs C): 2.06±0.61 vs 2.43±0.97, p<0.01 |
-38.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (TUP) |
24 Hour TUV (mL/day) (T vs C): 1943.23±204.1 vs 1736.76±176.04, p<0.001 |
33.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (TUV) |
GFR (mL/min) (T vs C): 29.4±3.68 vs 23.3±1.63, p<0.001 |
49.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (GFR) |
Prakash et al. (2004) [61] |
Malnutrition |
Keto amino acid tablets QD x 9 months |
Placebo tablets QD x 9 months |
99mTc-DTPA plasma sample method |
GFR (mL/min/ 1.73 m2) (pre vs post within C): 28.6±17.6 vs 22.5±15.9, p=0.015. |
Progress of renal failure prevented. |
– |
9 months |
Serum total proteins (g{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c}) (pre vs post within C): 7.04±0.66 vs 6.56±0.83, p=0.038 |
Mid-arm circumference (cm) (pre vs post within C): 28.0±4.4 vs 27.3±4.8, p=0.048 |
Sedaghattalab et al. (2021) [62] |
Inflammation |
Watercress extract QD x 1 month |
Placebo extract QD x 1 month |
Blood tests, TBA reaction assay, Colorimetric kits, Spectrophotometer |
BUN (mg/dL) (pre vs post): 40.6±11.2 vs 34.6±15.1, p<0.04. |
Yes |
-14.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (BUN) |
1 month |
Calcium (mg/dL) (pre vs post): 8.8±1.32 vs 10.4±2, p<0.001 |
18.1{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (calcium) |
Total oxidant status (μM) (pre vs post): 11.3±3.3 vs 6.9±2.4, p<0.001 |
-38.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (total oxidant status) |
Sulfhydryl protein (mmol/L) (pre vs post): 13.1±5.3 vs 7.4±4.3, p<0.001 |
-43.5{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (sulfhydryl protein) |
MDA (mmol/L) (pre vs post): 1.6±0.13 vs 0.42±0.27, p<0.001 |
-73.8{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (MDA) |
Superoxide dismutase (U/mL) (pre vs post): 29.3±6.3 vs 37.1±8.4, p<0.001 |
26.6{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (superoxide dismutase) |
Zare et al. (2019) [63] |
Inflammation |
Garlic extract tablets TIW x 2 months |
Placebo tablets TIW x 2 months |
Human homocysteine kits, ELISA |
IL-6 (pg/mL) (pre vs post): 2.2 (0.8, 6.4) vs 0.7 (0.6, 1.2), p<0.001 |
Yes |
-68.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (IL-6) |
2 months |
CRP (mg/L) (pre vs post): 13.0 (5.0, 14.0) vs 2.0 (1.0, 9.0), p<0.001 |
-84.6{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (CRP) |
ESR (mm) (pre vs post): 50.7±28.5 vs 35.4±21.7, p=0.021. |
-30.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (ESR) |
Boldaji et al. (2019) [59] |
Hypertension, stress, and inflammation |
Pomegranate juice TIW x 2 months |
Routine care |
Mini nutritional assessment |
MDA (μmol L-1) (pre vs post): 0.88±0.01vs 0.77±0.01, p<0.001 |
Yes |
-12.5{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (MDA) |
2 months |
Total antioxidant capacity (mmol L-1) (pre vs post): 0.40±0.08vs 0.49±0.11, p<0.001 |
22.5{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (total antioxidant capacity) |
IL-6 (ng L-1) (pre vs post): 3.00±1.48 vs 2.09±1.25, p<0.0001 |
-30.3{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (IL-6) |
Homeopathy (n=2) |
Cavalcanti et al. (2003) [16] |
Uremic pruritus |
Homeopathic verum medicationd administered |
Placebo medication administered |
Validated scale |
Pruritus score (pre vs 15 vs 30 vs 45 vs 60 days): 65±25 vs 46±29, p=0.002 vs 41±30, p=0.002 vs 42±29, p=0.002 vs 38±33, p=0.004 |
Yes |
-29.2{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pruritus score, pre vs 15 days), -36.9{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pruritus score, pre vs 30 days), -35.4{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pruritus score, pre vs 45 days), -41.5{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (pruritus score, pre vs 60 days) |
60 days |
Silveira et al. (2019) [64] |
Renal function |
Brazilian green propolis pills BID x 3 months |
Placebo pills BID x 3 months |
Immunoturbidimetry, ELISA |
Proteinuria (mg/24 h) (T vs C, baseline vs 12 months): 695 (95{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} CI, 483 to 999) vs. 1403 (95{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} CI, 1031 to 1909); p=0.004 |
Yes |
-27.6{fe463f59fb70c5c01486843be1d66c13e664ed3ae921464fa884afebcc0ffe6c} (proteinuria) |
12 months |