Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, CA, USA.
J Clin Rheumatol. 2011 Jun;17(4):185-92. doi: 10.1097/RHU.0b013e31821c0310.
To compare classic Ayurveda, methotrexate (MTX), and their combination in a double-blind, randomized, double-dummy, pilot trial in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for 36 weeks.
Forty-three seropositive RA patients by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria with disease duration of less than 7 years were assigned to the following treatment groups: MTX plus Ayurvedic placebo (n = 14), Ayurveda plus MTX placebo (n = 12), or Ayurveda plus MTX (n = 17). Outcomes included the Disease Activity Score (DAS28-CRP), ACR20/50/70, and Health Assessment Questionnaire--Disability Index. All measures were obtained every 12 weeks for 36 weeks. Analyses included descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, χ², or Student t test. The unique features of this study included the development of placebos for each Ayurvedic pharmacological dosage form and individualization of Ayurvedic therapy.
All groups were comparable at baseline in demographics and disease characteristics. There were no statistically significant differences among the 3 groups on the efficacy measures. ACR20 results were MTX 86%, Ayurveda 100%, and combination 82%, and DAS28-CRP response were MTX -2.4, Ayurveda -1.7, and combination -2.4. Differences in adverse events among groups were also not statistically significant, although the MTX groups experienced more adverse event (MTX 174, Ayurveda 112, combination 176). No deaths occurred.
In this first-ever, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study comparing Ayurveda, MTX, and their combination, all 3 treatments were approximately equivalent in efficacy, within the limits of a pilot study. Adverse events were numerically fewer in the Ayurveda-only group. This study demonstrates that double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized studies are possible when testing individualized classic Ayurvedic versus allopathic treatment in ways acceptable to western standards and to Ayurvedic physicians. It also justifies the need for larger studies.
在类风湿关节炎(RA)中进行为期 36 周的双盲、随机、双模拟、初步试验,比较经典阿育吠陀、甲氨蝶呤(MTX)及其联合用药的疗效。
43 例符合美国风湿病学会(ACR)标准的血清阳性 RA 患者,病程不足 7 年,分为以下治疗组:MTX 加阿育吠陀安慰剂(n=14)、阿育吠陀加 MTX 安慰剂(n=12)或阿育吠陀加 MTX(n=17)。疗效评估指标包括疾病活动评分(DAS28-CRP)、ACR20/50/70 以及健康评估问卷-残疾指数。所有指标均在 36 周内每 12 周进行一次评估。分析包括描述性统计、方差分析、χ²检验或学生 t 检验。本研究的独特之处在于为每种阿育吠陀药物剂型开发了安慰剂,并对阿育吠陀疗法进行了个体化治疗。
所有组在人口统计学和疾病特征方面在基线时均具有可比性。在疗效评估指标上,3 组之间无统计学差异。ACR20 结果为 MTX 86%、阿育吠陀 100%和联合用药 82%,DAS28-CRP 反应为 MTX-2.4、阿育吠陀-1.7 和联合用药-2.4。组间不良反应的差异也无统计学意义,尽管 MTX 组的不良反应更多(MTX 174、阿育吠陀 112、联合用药 176)。无死亡发生。
在首次进行的双盲、随机、安慰剂对照初步试验中,比较了阿育吠陀、MTX 及其联合用药,所有 3 种治疗方法在疗效方面大致相当,且符合初步试验的限制。单独使用阿育吠陀的组不良反应发生率较低。该研究表明,当以西方标准和阿育吠陀医生可接受的方式测试个体化经典阿育吠陀与对抗疗法的联合用药时,双盲、安慰剂对照、随机研究是可行的。这也证明了开展更大规模研究的必要性。