Suppr超能文献

中国类风湿关节炎管理中使用的中西医对比:一项随机、单盲、为期24周的研究。

Traditional Chinese medicine versus western medicine as used in China in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, single-blind, 24-week study.

作者信息

He Yi-Ting, Ou Ai-Hua, Yang Xiao-Bo, Chen Wei, Fu Li-Yuan, Lu Ai-Ping, Yan Xiao-Ping, Feng Xing-Hua, Su Li, Song Yue-Jin, Zeng Sheng-Ping, Liu Wei, Qian Xian, Zhu Wan-Hua, Lao Ying-Rong, Xu Wei-Hua, Wen Ze-Huai, He Xiao-Hong, Wang Bao-Juan, Chen Geng-Xin, Xue Su-Qin

机构信息

Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510120, China,

出版信息

Rheumatol Int. 2014 Dec;34(12):1647-55. doi: 10.1007/s00296-014-3010-6. Epub 2014 Apr 24.

Abstract

This study is designed to compare the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) with western medicine (WM) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This is a 24-week, randomized, multicenter, single-blind study comparing TCM with WM (as used in China) carried out between June 2002 and December 2004 in nine research centers in China, involving 489 patients. Patients were randomized to receive TCM (n = 247), MTX and SSZ (n = 242). MTX was started at a dose of 5 mg to a final dose of 7.5-15 mg weekly. The maintenance dose was 2.5-7.5 mg weekly. The starting dose of SSZ was 0.25 g bid, increasing by 0.25 g a day once a week to a final dose of 0.5-1 g qid. The maintenance dose was 0.5 g tid to qid. Primary end point was the proportion of patients with response according to the American College of Rheumatology 20 % improvement criteria (ACR20) at weeks 24. At 24 weeks, ACR20 responses were 53.0 % in TCM group and 66.5 % in WM group, (P < 0.001) at 24 weeks. ACR 50 responses were 31.6 % of TCM group and 42.6 % in WM group, (P = 0.01). ACR70 responses were 12.6 % in TCM group and 17.4 % in WM group, (P = 0.14). Side effects were observed more frequently in WM group. In this study, ACR20, ACR50 responses at 24 weeks were significantly better in the WM treated group, by intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol analysis. The ACR 70 response showed no significant difference between the two groups. TCM, while effective in treating RA, appears to be less effective than WM in controlling symptoms, but TCM is associated with fewer side effects.

摘要

本研究旨在比较中药(TCM)与西药(WM)治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)的疗效和安全性。这是一项为期24周的随机、多中心、单盲研究,于2002年6月至2004年12月在中国的9个研究中心进行,比较中药与西药(在中国使用的),涉及489例患者。患者被随机分为接受中药治疗组(n = 247)、甲氨蝶呤(MTX)和柳氮磺胺吡啶(SSZ)治疗组(n = 242)。MTX起始剂量为5mg,最终剂量为每周7.5 - 15mg。维持剂量为每周2.5 - 7.5mg。SSZ起始剂量为0.25g bid,每周增加0.25g,直至最终剂量为0.5 - 1g qid。维持剂量为0.5g tid至qid。主要终点是根据美国风湿病学会20%改善标准(ACR20)在第24周时有反应的患者比例。在第24周时,中药组的ACR20反应率为53.0%,西药组为66.5%,(P < 0.001)。中药组的ACR50反应率为31.6%,西药组为42.6%,(P = 0.01)。中药组的ACR70反应率为12.6%,西药组为17.4%,(P = 0.14)。西药组观察到的副作用更频繁。在本研究中,根据意向性分析(ITT)和符合方案分析,西药治疗组在第24周时的ACR20、ACR50反应明显更好。两组之间的ACR70反应无显著差异。中药虽然对治疗RA有效,但在控制症状方面似乎不如西药有效,但中药的副作用较少。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验