Zhang · The American journal of Chinese medicine 2019 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=11 studies (1,386 participants)

Efficacy and Safety of Berberine Alone or Combined with Statins for the Treatment of Hyperlipidemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials.

Cited 52 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PubMed 31094214 · doi:10.1142/S0192415X19500393 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

A systematic review and meta-analysis of six electronic databases (SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang Data, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) through March 8, 2018, evaluated randomized controlled trials investigating berberine alone or combined with statins for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

What was found

Eleven RCTs involving 1,386 patients were included. Compared with placebo, berberine significantly reduced total cholesterol and LDL and elevated HDL (P < 0.05). Compared with simvastatin monotherapy, berberine monotherapy was effective only in reducing triglycerides (MD = -0.37, 95% CI: -0.66 to -0.07, P = 0.02), with no statistically significant differences in LDL or HDL. Berberine plus simvastatin versus simvastatin alone showed greater reductions in triglycerides (MD = -0.33, 95% CI: -0.46 to -0.20, P < 0.00001) and total cholesterol (MD = -0.36, 95% CI: -0.60 to -0.12, P = 0.003). Berberine alone or with simvastatin showed lower rates of transaminase elevation and muscle aches than control groups, but higher incidence of constipation.

Why it matters

Berberine may serve as an adjunct or alternative lipid-lowering option, particularly for reducing triglycerides and total cholesterol, with a potentially lower rate of muscle and liver side effects compared to standard statin regimens.

Limits

The study authors explicitly note that the quality and quantity of the included RCTs were dissatisfactory, reducing the reliability of the conclusions. Specific dosages, treatment durations, and hard clinical cardiovascular outcomes were not reported in the abstract.

Cited by