| Literature DB >> 19692449 |
Wan Fung Kum1, Siva Sundara Kumar Durairajan, Zhao Xiang Bian, Sui Cheung Man, Yuen Chi Lam, Li Xia Xie, Jia Hong Lu, Yan Wang, Xian Zhang Huang, Min Li.
Abstract
The objective of this clinical study is to examine the effects of a Chinese herbal medicine formula (Jia Wei Liu Jun Zi Tang: JWLJZT) on motor and non-motor symptoms, and on complications of conventional therapy in idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD), using an add-on design. Fifty-five patients with PD were randomly allocated to receive either Chinese herbal medicine or placebo for 24 weeks. Primary outcome measure was the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). Secondary outcome measures included the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Short-Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), home diaries, and a range of category rating scales. JWLJZT resulted in a significant improvement in the UPDRS IVC when compared with placebo at 12 weeks (P = .039) and 24 weeks (P = .034). In addition, patients in the Chinese herbal medicine group also showed significant improvement in PDQ-39 communication scores at 12 weeks (P = .024) and 24 weeks (P = .047) when compared with the placebo group. There were no significant differences between treatment and control groups for SF-36 variables, GDS score or the mean daily "on-off" time. One case of mild diarrhea was noted in the treatment group. The findings suggest that JWLJZT can relieve some non-motor complications of conventional therapy and improve the communication ability in patients with PD. The results of this pilot study warrant larger multi-center clinical studies to assess long-term efficacy and tolerability of JWLJZT, and to elucidate the mechanisms by which it affects PD function.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 19692449 PMCID: PMC3137291 DOI: 10.1093/ecam/nep116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Herbal preparation
| Chinese name | Pharmaceutical name | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
|
| Dried root of | 13.39 |
|
| Dried root tuber of | 13.39 |
|
| Dried sclerotium of the fungus, | 10.71 |
|
| Dried hook-bearing stem branch of | 10.71 |
|
| Rhizome of | 8.93 |
|
| Dried root of | 8.93 |
|
| Dried tuber of | 8.04 |
|
| Dried rhizome of | 8.04 |
|
| Dried root of | 8.04 |
|
| Dried pericarp of the ripe fruit of | 5.36 |
|
| Dried root and rhizome of | 4.46 |
Figure 1Patients flow. Dropouts are given along with their PDQ-39 summary index score at baseline.
Patient characteristics at baseline.
| Parameter | TCM group | Control group |
|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | |
| Age (years) | 64.82 ± 8.88 | 60.88 ± 9.41 |
| Gender (men/women) | 14/8 | 17/8 |
| Disease duration (years) | 5.44 ± 5.26 | 6.37 ± 4.93 |
| Duration of levodopa treatment (years) | 5.36 ± 5.27 | 6.12 ± 4.89 |
| Total levodopa daily | 405.68 ± 295.80 | 498.00 ± 313.74 |
| dose (mg) | ||
| Baseline scores | ||
| H&Y score | 2.68 ± 1.09 | 2.24 ± 0.88 |
| PDQ-39 Single Index | 28.96 ± 13.19 | 29.21 ± 15.44 |
| UPDRS Total | 55.45 ± 21.48 | 48.80 ± 18.92 |
| GDS score | 16.18 ± 6.79 | 15.64 ± 6.28 |
| Daily off time (%) | 16.65 ± 17.59 | 22.94 ± 19.24 |
Values given as mean ± SD.
Communications, complications of therapy (within group comparisons).
| Time | Parameter | TCM group ( |
| Control group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | PDQ-39 Communications | 28.03 ± 23.65 | 23.75 ± 19.77 | ||
| 12 weeks | 23.86 ± 19.12 | .316 | 30.67 ± 21.07 | .015a | |
| 24 weeks | 24.24 ± 19.91 | .352 | 29.67 ± 19.85 | .043a | |
| Baseline | UPDRS IV | 4.22 ± 2.69 | 5.08 ± 3.48 | ||
| 12 weeks | 3.36 ± 2.42 | .013a | 5.08 ± 3.53 | 1.000 | |
| 24 weeks | 3.22 ± 2.35 | .018a | 5.12 ± 3.95 | .910 | |
| Baseline | UPDRS IVC | 1.09 ± 0.75 | 0.76 ± 0.83 | ||
| 12 weeks | 0.64 ± 0.66 | .013a | 0.72 ± 0.74 | .755 | |
| 24 weeks | 0.50 ± 0.60 | .003a | 0.68 ± 0.85 | .617 |
aComparison with baseline were statistically significant at P < .05.
Communications, complications of therapy (between group comparisons).
| Time (weeks) | Parameter | TCM group ( | Control group ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | PDQ-39 Communications | −4.17 ± 19.03 | 6.92 ± 13.27 | .024a |
| 24 | −3.79 ± 18.67 | 5.92 ± 13.87 | .047a | |
| 12 | UPDRS IV | −0.86 ± 1.49 | 0.00 ± 0.04 | .029a |
| 24 | −1.00 ± 1.83 | 1.44 ± 1.74 | .085 | |
| 12 | UPDRS IVC | −0.45 ± 0.74 | −0.04 ± 0.79 | .039a |
| 24 | −0.59 ± 0.80 | −0.08 ± 0.81 | .034a |
aComparison with baseline were statistically significant at P < .05.