| Literature DB >> 22028733 |
Xian-Ze Meng1, Feng Wu, Pin-Kang Wei, Li-Juan Xiu, Jun Shi, Bin Pang, Da-Zhi Sun, Zhi-Feng Qin, Yi Huang, Lixing Lao.
Abstract
Introduction. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is accompanied by poor general psychological status (GPS). In the present study, we investigated the effects of a Chinese herbal formula on GPS in earthquake survivors with PTSD. Methods. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial compared a Chinese herbal formula, Xiao-Tan-Jie-Yu-Fang (XTJYF), to placebo in 2008 Sichuan earthquake survivors with PTSD. Patients were randomized into XTJYF (n = 123) and placebo (n = 122) groups. Baseline-to-end-point score changes in the three global indices of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) and rates of response in the SCL global severity index (GSI) were the primary endpoints. A subanalysis of the nine SCL factors and the sleep quality score were secondary endpoints. Results and Discussion. Compared to placebo, the XTJYF group was significantly improved in all three SCL global indices (P = 0.001~0.028). More patients in the XTJYF group reported "much improved" than the placebo group (P = 0.001). The XTJYF group performed significantly better than control in five out of nine SCL factors (somatization, obsessive-compulsive behavior, depression, anxiety, and hostility (P = 0.001~0.036)), and in sleep quality score (P < 0.001). XTJYF produced no serious adverse events. These findings suggest that XTJYF may be an effective and safe treatment option for improving GPS in patients with PTSD.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22028733 PMCID: PMC3199055 DOI: 10.1155/2012/691258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Ingredients of Xiao-Tan-Jie-Yu-Fang.
| No. | Chinese name | Pharmaceutical name | Proportion, % |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | Chai-Hu |
| 4.5 |
| (2) | Dang-Gui |
| 4.5 |
| (3) | Fu-Ling |
| 15.2 |
| (4) | Chao Bai-Zhu |
| 4.5 |
| (5) | Chao Bai-Shao |
| 7.6 |
| (6) | Bo-He |
| 3.0 |
| (7) | Zhi Gan-Cao |
| 3.0 |
| (8) | Huang-Lian |
| 1.5 |
| (9) | Fa Ban-Xia |
| 7.6 |
| (10) | Chen-Pi |
| 4.5 |
| (11) | Duan Long-Gu |
| 15.0 |
| (12) | Duan Mu-Li |
| 15.0 |
| (13) | Zhi Da-Huang |
| 6.1 |
| (14) | Shi-Changpu |
| 7.6 |
Figure 1Flow chart of the study sample.
Baseline characteristics, earthquake-affected PTSD patient treatment groups.
| Variable | XTJYF | Placebo |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, | |||
| Female | 88 (71.5) | 86 (70.5) | 0.89 |
| Male | 35 (28.5) | 36 (29.5) | |
| Age, mean (SD) | 51.2 (15.0) | 51.0 (16.0) | 0.93 |
| Marital status, | |||
| Married or living together | 99 (80.5) | 96 (78.7) | 0.75 |
| Others (unmarried, divorced, etc.) | 24 (19.5) | 26 (21.3) | |
| Education, | |||
| Primary school or less | 51 (41.5) | 53 (43.4) | 0.80 |
| More than primary school | 72 (58.5) | 69 (56.6) | |
| Occupation, | |||
| Farmer or unemployed | 89 (72.4) | 86 (70.5) | 0.78 |
| Other employment or retired | 34 (27.6) | 24 (19.5) | |
| Clinical PTSD symptom data, | |||
| Uncontrollable recall of earthquake experiences | 81 (65.9) | 85 (69.7) | 0.59 |
| Repeated nightmares of earthquake | 53 (43.1) | 54 (44.3) | 0.90 |
| Repeated hallucinations | 46 (37.4) | 38 (31.1) | 0.35 |
| Heart racing, sweating, pallor when viewing earthquake ruins or victims | 91 (74.0) | 82 (67.2) | 0.26 |
| Poor sleep | 87 (70.7) | 86 (70.5) | 1.00 |
| Tense or easily agitated | 97 (78.9) | 92 (75.4) | 0.55 |
| Lack of concentration | 60 (48.8) | 50 (41.0) | 0.25 |
| Panic | 52 (42.3) | 45 (36.9) | 0.43 |
| Avoids recalling anything related to the earthquake | 73 (59.3) | 73 (59.8) | 1.00 |
| Avoids activities related to earthquake | 56 (45.5) | 55 (45.1) | 1.00 |
| Avoids contact with others, indifferent to relatives | 54 (43.9) | 45 (36.9) | 0.30 |
| Loss of interest and motivation | 51 (41.5) | 55 (45.1) | 0.61 |
| Selectively forgetful | 67 (54.5) | 62 (50.8) | 0.61 |
| Loss of hope for the future | 34 (27.6) | 39 (32.0) | 0.49 |
| Lost relatives in the earthquake, | 7 (5.7) | 11 (9.0) | 0.34 |
| Baseline outcome measures from SCL-90-R, mean (SD) | |||
| Global severity index | 1.14 (0.61) | 1.12 (0.60) | 0.78 |
| Positive symptom total index | 48.4 (20.0) | 48.8 (18.8) | 0.87 |
| Positive symptom distress index | 2.14 (0.97) | 2.00 (0.52) | 0.18 |
SCL-90-R Factor scores, Chinese and American norms compared to earthquake-affected PTSD patients at baseline.
| Sample | Norm, China | Norm, USA● | PTSD, Sichuan |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCL-90-R |
|
|
|
| Mean (95% CI) | Mean (95% CI) | Mean (95% CI) | |
| Somatization | 0.37 (0.34–0.40) | 0.36 (0.33–0.39) | 1.20 (1.11–1.29)* |
| Obsessive-compulsive behavior | 0.62 (0.59–0.65) | 0.39 (0.36–0.42) | 1.38 (1.29–1.47)* |
| Interpersonal sensitivity | 0.65 (0.62–0.68) | 0.29 (0.27–0.31) | 0.93 (0.84–1.02)* |
| Depression | 0.50 (0.47–0.53) | 0.36 (0.33–0.39) | 1.29 (1.18–1.39)* |
| Anxiety | 0.39 (0.37–0.41) | 0.30 (0.28–0.32) | 1.25 (1.15–1.34)* |
| Hostility | 0.46 (0.43–0.49) | 0.30 (0.27–0.33) | 1.12 (1.02–1.23)* |
| Phobic anxiety | 0.23 (0.21–0.25) | 0.13 (0.11–0.15) | 0.93 (0.83–1.03)* |
| Paranoid ideation | 0.43 (0.40–0.46) | 0.34 (0.31–0.37) | 0.74 (0.65–0.83)* |
| Psychoticism | 0.29 (0.27–0.31) | 0.14 (0.12–0.16) | 0.77 (0.69–0.85)* |
| Global severity index | 0.31 (0.29–0.33) | 1.13 (1.05–1.20) | |
| Positive symptom total index | 24.9 (24.0–25.9) | 19.3 (18.3–20.3) | 48.6 (46.2–51.1)* |
| Positive symptom distress index | 1.32 (1.29–1.35) | 2.07 (1.97–2.17)∆ |
The original data was obtained from Jin et al. [42]. We recalculated the original data from “mean (sd)” to “mean (95% CI)” in order to make these data comparable. ●The original data was obtained from Derogatis [41]. We recalculated the original data from “mean (sd)” to “mean (95% CI)” in order to make these data comparable.*Compared to the Chinese and American norms, P < 0.05. Compared to the American norms, P < 0.05.
XTJYF treatment effect on primary and secondary outcomes.(1)
| SCL-90-R factor | XTJYF ( | Placebo ( | Effect size(2) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (95% CI) | Mean (95% CI) | |||
|
| ||||
| Global severity index | 0.30 (0.24–0.37) | 0.15 (0.09–0.21) |
|
|
| Positive symptom total index | 6.66 (4.58–8.73) | 3.52 (1.62–5.41) | 0.284 |
|
| Positive symptom distress index | 0.38 (0.30–0.45) | 0.19 (0.12–0.26) |
|
|
|
| ||||
| Somatization | 0.34 (0.25–0.43) | 0.16 (0.08–0.24) |
|
|
| Obsessive-compulsive behavior | 0.28 (0.20–0.36) | 0.15 (0.07–0.24) | 0.270 |
|
| Interpersonal sensitivity | 0.27 (0.19–0.35) | 0.16 (0.08–0.24) | 0.241 | 0.061 |
| Depression | 0.35 (0.27–0.44) | 0.16 (0.08–0.24) |
|
|
| Anxiety | 0.40 (0.29–0.50) | 0.12 (0.04–0.21) |
|
|
| Hostility | 0.31 (0.21–0.40) | 0.15 (0.06–0.24) |
|
|
| Phobic anxiety | 0.23 (0.14–0.32) | 0.13 (0.05–0.21) | 0.211 | 0.101 |
| Paranoid ideation | 0.16 (0.08–0.24) | 0.12 (0.04–0.21) | 0.070 | 0.586 |
| Psychoticism | 0.19 (0.11–0.26) | 0.15 (0.08–0.23) | 0.077 | 0.548 |
| Sleep quality | 0.76 (0.58–0.94) | 0.33 (0.19–0.47) |
|
|
(1)Statistical analysis was done using intent-to-treat analysis (ITT) with SPSS. (2)Cohen's d effect size measure, in which an effect size of 0.2 to 0.3 is considered a “small” effect, around 0.5, a “medium” effect, and 0.8 to infinity, a “large” effect, is used here. (3)The P values come from the two sample t-tests.
Figure 2Treatment response rates of XTJYF versus placebo. Patients with a score reduction of at least 30% from the baseline SCL-90-R GSI score were classified as “much improved,” and 50%, as “very much improved.” *XTJYF versus placebo, P < 0.05.