Antiosteoporosis Effect and Possible Mechanisms of the Ingredients of Fructus Psoraleae in Animal Models of Osteoporosis: A Preclinical Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Authors: Lin Zhou , Zheng Junju , Chen Jiaru , Chen Mangmang , Dong Shuangxia 
Published: November 2021

Objective. Fructus Psoraleae (FP) and its ingredients (IFP) have a variety of biological activities and are widely used to treat osteoporosis (OP). Herein, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of IFP for an animal model of OP from the current literatures. Potential mechanisms of IFP in the treatment of OP were also summarized. Materials and Methods. We carried out a search for electronic literature in the PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, EMBASE, Wanfang, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Cochrane Library, as well as Chinese VIP databases targeting articles published from inception to June 2021. The inclusion criteria were animal studies that assessed the efficacy and safety of IFP for OP, regardless of publication status or language. The exclusion criteria included (1) other types of studies (in vitro studies, case reports, clinical trials, reviews, abstracts, comments, and editorials), (2) combination with other compounds, (3) compared with other traditional Chinese medicine, (4) not osteoporosis or bone loss model, (5) studies with insufficient data, (6) lack of a control group, and (7) duplicate publications. The modified Collaborative Approach to Meta‐Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Stroke (CAMARADES) 10‐item quality checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included studies. We computed the relative risk (RR) and the standard mean difference (SMD) for dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively. When heterogeneity was detected or there was significant statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.05 or I2 > 50%), a random‐effects model was employed, followed by further subgroup analysis and metaregression estimations to ascertain the origins of heterogeneity. Otherwise, we used a fixed‐effects model (P ≥ 0.05 or I2 ≤ 50%). The primary outcome measures were bone mineral density (BMD), serum osteocalcin(S‐OCN), bone volume over total volume (BV/TV), trabecular number (Tb.N), trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), trabecular separation (Tb.Sp), bone maximum load, and elasticity modulus. The secondary outcome measure was the antiosteoporosis mechanisms of IFP. The STATA 12.0 software was used to analyze the data. Results. Overall, 16 studies focusing on 379 animals were enrolled into the study. The risk of bias score of included studies ranged from 4 to 7 with an average score of 5.25. The present study provided the preliminary preclinical evidence that administration of IFP could significantly increase the S‐OCN, BMD, BV/TV, and Tb.N while Tb.Th and Tb.Sp were remarkably decreased by IFP in OP model animals (P < 0.05). Moreover, IFP could significantly improve the bone biomechanical indicator bone maximum load and elasticity modulus (P < 0.05). In terms of the possible mechanisms of treatment of OP, IFP exerts anti‐OP effects in animal models probably through osteoprotegerin/receptor activator of the nuclear factor‐κB ligand/receptor activator of nuclear factor‐κB (OPG/RANKL/RANK), peroxisome proliferator activated receptor γ (PPAR‐γ)/Axin2/Wnt, antioxidative stress via forkhead box O3a (FoxO3a)/Axin2/Wnt, phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase/protein kinase B/mammalian target of rapamycin (PI3K/Akt/mTOR), estrogen‐like effect, and gamma‐aminobutyric acid/gamma‐aminobutyric acid receptor (GABA/GABABRI) signaling pathway. Conclusion. Taken together, the findings suggest the possibility of developing IFP as a drug or an ingredient in diet for the clinical treatment of OP. We recommend that rigorous, as well as high‐quality, trials involving large sample sizes should be conducted to confirm our findings.