OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical effectiveness of Qinghuang Powder (QHP) combined with Bupi Yishen Decoction (, BPYS) in treating myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and its relationship with France, America, and Britain (FAB) type, international prognosis scaling system (IPSS) risk, and chromosome karyotype. METHODS: There were 124 MDS patients subjected to the tests. By FAB typing, 91 patients were typed as refractory anemia (RA) type and 33 as refractory anemia with excess of blasts (RAEB) type; by IPSS scale, 21 were sorted to low risk, 77 to moderate risk I, 20 to moderate risk II, and 6 to high risk; 78 of them had normal chromosome and 46 with abnormal chromosome, including 26 of trisomy 8. All patients were treated with QHP+BPYS, and the changes of peripheral blood figure and bone marrow were observed. RESULTS: After treatment, the general effective rate was 72.58% (90/124), which in the patients of RA type was 80.22% (73/91) and in RAEB type 51.52% (17/33). The former was better than that in the later (P<0.01). For the analysis in the patients of different IPSS risk degrees, the effective rate was 95.24% (20/21) in the lowrisk group, 72.73% (56/77) in moderate risk I, 65.00% (13/20) in moderate-risk II, and 16.67% (1/6) in high-risk group. Those in the first two groups were superior to that in the latter two (P<0.01). The effective rate was 79.49% (61/78) in the patients with normal chromosome and was 60.87% (28/46) in the patients with abnormal chromosome, showing a significant difference between them. While in the patients of trisomy 8, it was 73.08% (19/26), which was parallel to that in the patients with normal chromosome. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of QHP+BPYS comprehensive therapy for MDS is unquestionably good, and it is markedly correlated with the FAB type and IPSS risk degree of the disease, as well as the normality of chromosome in the patient.
OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical effectiveness of Qinghuang Powder (QHP) combined with Bupi Yishen Decoction (, BPYS) in treating myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and its relationship with France, America, and Britain (FAB) type, international prognosis scaling system (IPSS) risk, and chromosome karyotype. METHODS: There were 124 MDSpatients subjected to the tests. By FAB typing, 91 patients were typed as refractory anemia (RA) type and 33 as refractory anemia with excess of blasts (RAEB) type; by IPSS scale, 21 were sorted to low risk, 77 to moderate risk I, 20 to moderate risk II, and 6 to high risk; 78 of them had normal chromosome and 46 with abnormal chromosome, including 26 of trisomy 8. All patients were treated with QHP+BPYS, and the changes of peripheral blood figure and bone marrow were observed. RESULTS: After treatment, the general effective rate was 72.58% (90/124), which in the patients of RA type was 80.22% (73/91) and in RAEB type 51.52% (17/33). The former was better than that in the later (P<0.01). For the analysis in the patients of different IPSS risk degrees, the effective rate was 95.24% (20/21) in the lowrisk group, 72.73% (56/77) in moderate risk I, 65.00% (13/20) in moderate-risk II, and 16.67% (1/6) in high-risk group. Those in the first two groups were superior to that in the latter two (P<0.01). The effective rate was 79.49% (61/78) in the patients with normal chromosome and was 60.87% (28/46) in the patients with abnormal chromosome, showing a significant difference between them. While in the patients of trisomy 8, it was 73.08% (19/26), which was parallel to that in the patients with normal chromosome. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of QHP+BPYS comprehensive therapy for MDS is unquestionably good, and it is markedly correlated with the FAB type and IPSS risk degree of the disease, as well as the normality of chromosome in the patient.
Authors: B D Cheson; J M Bennett; H Kantarjian; A Pinto; C A Schiffer; S D Nimer; B Löwenberg; M Beran; T M de Witte; R M Stone; M Mittelman; G F Sanz; P W Wijermans; S Gore; P L Greenberg Journal: Blood Date: 2000-12-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: P Greenberg; C Cox; M M LeBeau; P Fenaux; P Morel; G Sanz; M Sanz; T Vallespi; T Hamblin; D Oscier; K Ohyashiki; K Toyama; C Aul; G Mufti; J Bennett Journal: Blood Date: 1997-03-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: G Q Chen; J Zhu; X G Shi; J H Ni; H J Zhong; G Y Si; X L Jin; W Tang; X S Li; S M Xong; Z X Shen; G L Sun; J Ma; P Zhang; T D Zhang; C Gazin; T Naoe; S J Chen; Z Y Wang; Z Chen Journal: Blood Date: 1996-08-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Detlef Haase; Ulrich Germing; Julie Schanz; Michael Pfeilstöcker; Thomas Nösslinger; Barbara Hildebrandt; Andrea Kundgen; Michael Lübbert; Regina Kunzmann; Aristoteles A N Giagounidis; Carlo Aul; Lorenz Trümper; Otto Krieger; Reinhard Stauder; Thomas H Müller; Friedrich Wimazal; Peter Valent; Christa Fonatsch; Christian Steidl Journal: Blood Date: 2007-08-28 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: D Haase; C Fonatsch; M Freund; B Wörmann; H Bodenstein; H Bartels; B Stollmann-Gibbels; E Lengfelder Journal: Ann Hematol Date: 1995-04 Impact factor: 3.673
Authors: Sun Shuzhen; Ma Rou; Hu Xiaomei; Yang Xiao-Hong; Xu Yong-Gang; Wang Hongzhi; Yang Xiu-Peng Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 2.629