OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between the syndrome types in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and serum HBV DNA load in chronic HBV carriers positive for HBeAg. METHODS: According to the TCM syndrome types, 185 chronic HBV carriers with HBeAg positivity were classified into single syndrome group (liver Qi depression, kidney Qi deficiency, spleen Qi deficiency, and kidney Yang deficiency), compound syndrome group, and unidentifiable syndrome group; based on the nature of the condition in TCM terms, the patients were classified into excess syndrome group, deficiency syndrome group and comorbidity syndrome group. The serum HBV DNA levels in these cases were analyzed in relation to the TCM syndrome types and disease nature. RESULTS: HBV DNA levels showed no significant difference among the patients with single syndrome, compound syndromes and unidentifiable syndrome (F=0.910, P=0.404), nor among the patients with the 5 different single TCM syndromes (χ²=4.672, P=0.323) or those with different disease nature (F=0.631, P=0.596). CONCLUSION: Serum HBV DNA level can not be considered as the evidence for syndrome differentiation in chronic HBV carriers with positive HBeAg.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between the syndrome types in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and serum HBV DNA load in chronic HBV carriers positive for HBeAg. METHODS: According to the TCM syndrome types, 185 chronic HBV carriers with HBeAg positivity were classified into single syndrome group (liver Qi depression, kidney Qi deficiency, spleen Qi deficiency, and kidney Yang deficiency), compound syndrome group, and unidentifiable syndrome group; based on the nature of the condition in TCM terms, the patients were classified into excess syndrome group, deficiency syndrome group and comorbidity syndrome group. The serum HBV DNA levels in these cases were analyzed in relation to the TCM syndrome types and disease nature. RESULTS: HBV DNA levels showed no significant difference among the patients with single syndrome, compound syndromes and unidentifiable syndrome (F=0.910, P=0.404), nor among the patients with the 5 different single TCM syndromes (χ²=4.672, P=0.323) or those with different disease nature (F=0.631, P=0.596). CONCLUSION: Serum HBV DNA level can not be considered as the evidence for syndrome differentiation in chronic HBV carriers with positive HBeAg.