| Literature DB >> 25118962 |
Genfa Wang1, Baojun Liu1, Yuxue Cao1, Yijie Du1, Hongying Zhang1, Qingli Luo1, Bei Li1, Jinfeng Wu1, Yubao Lv1, Jing Sun1, Hualiang Jin1, Kai Wei1, Zhengxiao Zhao1, Lingwen Kong1, Xianmei Zhou2, Qing Miao3, Gang Wang4, Qingwei Zhou5, Jingcheng Dong1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two Chinese herbal formulae for the treatment of stable COPD.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25118962 PMCID: PMC4132093 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103168
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Enrollment of patients and completion of the study (Flow diagram).
Baseline characteristics of the patients.
| Characteristics | Per-protocol set | |||
| BF tablet group | BY granule group | Placebo group | P-value | |
| n = 82 | n = 89 | n = 91 | ||
|
| 62.43±9.04 | 61.51±8.79 | 62.68±8.10 | 0.5039 |
|
| 165.22±8.13 | 164.45±8.97 | 166.03±8.59 | 0.285 |
|
| 61.81±9.41 | 60.89±11.45 | 64.49±11.81 | 0.0382 |
|
| 12.57±8.39 | 12.75±8.95 | 12.43±9.46 | 0.9946 |
|
| 0.92 | |||
| Yes | 19(23.17%) | 22(24.72%) | 22(24.18%) | |
| No | 63(76.83%) | 67(75.28%) | 69(75.82%) | |
|
| 0.122 | |||
| Yes | 27(32.93%) | 41(46.59%) | 36(39.56%) | |
| No | 55(67.07%) | 47(53.41%) | 55(60.44%) | |
|
| 0.145 | |||
| Yes | 25(30.49%) | 18(22.22%) | 32(35.96%) | |
| No | 57(69.51%) | 63(77.78%) | 57(64.04%) | |
|
| 0.981 | |||
| Yes | 40(48.78%) | 42(47.73%) | 45(49.45%) | |
| No | 42(51.22%) | 46(52.27%) | 46(50.55%) | |
|
| 0.333 | |||
| Male | 64(78.05%) | 62(69.66%) | 69(75.82%) | |
| Female | 18(21.95%) | 27(30.34%) | 22(24.18%) | |
|
| ||||
| Systolic pressure(mm/Hg) | 121.84±10.06 | 122.09±8.10 | 120.88±9.62 | 0.6734 |
| Diastolic pressure | 77.36±5.58 | 76.40±6.00 | 76.40±7.27 | 0.3923 |
|
| 19.33±2.06 | 18.89±2.26 | 18.78±2.09 | 0.052 |
| Temperature(°C) | 36.64±0.27 | 36.67±0.23 | 36.67±0.25 | 0.7375 |
| Heart rate | 79.43±10.78 | 76.82±6.82 | 77.79±8.66 | 0.1248 |
|
| 0.601 | |||
| Normal | 25(32.05%) | 22(25.88%) | 25(29.41%) | |
| Abnormal | 53(67.95%) | 63(74.12%) | 60(70.59%) | |
|
| ||||
| VC(L) | 2.38±0.84 | 2.35±0.76 | 2.44±0.93 | 0.7528 |
| FEV1(%) | 46.65±15.55 | 48.47±15.44 | 46.30±15.14 | 0.5654 |
| FEV1/FVC(%)pre | 50.33±11.15 | 53.77±11.24 | 50.36±10.83 | 0.0898 |
| FEV1/FVC(%)post | 51.38±10.58 | 54.65±13.51 | 51.33±13.76 | 0.2968 |
| PEF(L/S) | 3.30±1.54 | 3.32±1.48 | 3.14±1.57 | 0.854 |
|
| 0.674 | |||
| I(mild) | 1(1.22%) | 0(0.00%) | 2(2.20%) | |
| II(moderate) | 34(41.46%) | 42(47.19%) | 34(37.36%) | |
| III(severe) | 45(54.88%) | 44(49.44%) | 50(54.95%) | |
| IV(very severe) | 2(2.44%) | 3(3.37%) | 5(5.49%) | |
|
| ||||
| qi deficiency | 0.182 | |||
| Yes | 41(50.00%) | 45(50.56%) | 55(60.44%) | |
| No | 41(50.00%) | 44(49.44%) | 36(39.56%) | |
| kidney qi deficiency | 0.104 | |||
| Yes | 56(68.29%) | 57(64.04%) | 50(54.95%) | |
| No | 26(31.71%) | 32(35.96%) | 41(45.05%) | |
| kidney yang deficiency | 0.35 | |||
| Yes | 17(20.73%) | 27(30.34%) | 25(27.47%) | |
| No | 65(79.27%) | 62(69.66%) | 66(72.53%) | |
| hyperactivity of fire due to yin | ||||
| Yes | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | |
| No | 82(100.0%) | 89(100.0%) | 91(100.0%) | |
NOTE: There are no significant differences (P>0.05) at the baseline of population (index of population: sex, age, height, weight, course of disease, family history, smoking history, past disease history, past medication history), general physical examination (BP, respiratory times, chest radiograph, temperature, heart rate), syndrome differentiation of TCM, and COPD classification, besides weight (P<0.05 BY group for placebo group).
Figure 2Statistical graphs.
Note: Lung function indexes (FEV1 (%), VC, PEF) (A1∼3); Exacerbation frequency(%) (B1); Descent range about score of SGRQ (B2); Inflammatory indexes: IL6(C1), IL8(C2), IL10(C3), IL17(C4∼5), IL-1β(C6∼7), TNF-α(C8), TGF-β1(C9), Cortisol(C11∼12); BODE index(D1); 6MWD (D2); Psychological field score (D3∼4).
Variable of lung function, Frequency of acute exacerbation, and Score and descent range of SGRQ before and after treatment.
| Variables | Per-protocol set | |||
| BF tablet group | BY granule group | Placebo group | P-value | |
| n = 82 | n = 89 | n = 91 | ||
|
| ||||
| VC(L) | ||||
| Before treatment | 2.38±0.84 | 2.35±0.76 | 2.44±0.93 | 0.7528 |
| After treatment | 2.53±0.61 | 2.42±0.56 | 2.47±0.76 | 0.7077 |
| FEV1(%) (percentage of predicted value) | ||||
| Before treatment | 46.65±15.55 | 48.47±15.44 | 46.30±15.14 | 0.5654 |
| After treatment | 46.91±16.10 | 50.57±16.39 | 46.30±16.92 | 0.2307 |
| FEV1/FVC (%) (pre-bronchodilator) | ||||
| Before treatment | 50.33±11.15 | 53.77±11.24 | 50.36±10.83 | 0.0898 |
| After treatment | 52.47±11.97 | 55.39±13.01 | 53.32±15.06 | 0.6103 |
| FEV1/FVC (%) (post-bronchodilator) | ||||
| Before treatment | 51.38±10.58 | 54.65±13.51 | 51.33±13.76 | 0.2968 |
| After treatment | 54.50±13.14 | 57.47±14.96 | 54.85±15.28 | 0.4328 |
| PEF(L/S) | ||||
| Before treatment | 3.30±1.54 | 3.32±1.48 | 3.14±1.57 | 0.854 |
| After treatment | 3.21±1.45 | 3.39±1.49 | 3.08±1.50 | 0.5612 |
|
| ||||
| at 30days | 0.993 | |||
| 0 | 73(89.02%) | 81(92.05%) | 81(90.00%) | |
| once | 9(10.98%) | 5(5.68%) | 9(10.00%) | |
| twice | 0(0.00%) | 1(1.14%) | 0(0.00%) | |
| ≥three times | 0(0.00%) | 1(1.14%) | 0(0.00%) | |
| at 90days | 0.62 | |||
| 0 | 70(85.37%) | 65(79.27%) | 79(89.77%) | |
| once | 12(14.63%) | 17(20.73%) | 7(7.95%) | |
| twice | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | 2(2.27%) | |
| ≥three times | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | |
| at 180days | 0.785 | |||
| 0 | 65(84.42%) | 74(89.16%) | 74(86.05%) | |
| once | 12(15.58%) | 8(9.64%) | 12(13.95%) | |
| twice | 0(0.00%) | 1(1.20%) | 0(0.00%) | |
| ≥three times | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | |
| at 270days | 0.851 | |||
| 0 | 71(92.21%) | 77(92.77%) | 77(89.53%) | |
| once | 6(7.79%) | 5(6.02%) | 9(10.47%) | |
| twice | 0(0.00%) | 1(1.20%) | 0(0.00%) | |
| ≥three times | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | |
| at 360days | 0.067 | |||
| 0 | 72(96.00%) | 69(87.34%) | 71(85.54%) | |
| once | 3(4.00%) | 10(12.66%) | 10(12.05%) | |
| twice | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | 2(2.41%) | |
| ≥three times | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | 0(0.00%) | |
|
| ||||
| Score before treatment | 37.23±15.23 | 38.11±15.74 | 36.67±15.51 | 0.7602 |
| Descent range of 30days | 1.64±5.69 | 2.35±4.82 | 0.30±7.05 | 0.0525 |
| Score at 30days | 35.51±14.88 | 36.18±14.95 | 36.23±14.53 | 0.7778 |
| Descent range of 90days | 3.62±10.13 | 2.88±6.81 | 1.15±8.38 | 0.1321 |
| Score at 90days | 34.18±13.88 | 35.02±14.64 | 36.57±15.75 | 0.2358 |
| Descent range of 180days | 4.73±8.02 | 5.65±7.82 | 2.07±7.85 | 0.0115 |
| P<0.05 for BF VS Placebo, P<0.05 for BY VS Placebo, P>0.05 for BF VS BY | ||||
| Score at 180days | 33.66±15.74 | 33.13±14.53 | 34.56±15.13 | 0.6384 |
| Descent range of 270days | 4.87±8.05 | 5.59±9.52 | 3.92±7.09 | 0.508 |
| Score at 270days | 33.34±14.88 | 33.09±13.72 | 32.53±15.09 | 0.9976 |
| Descent range of 360days | 5.30±9.05 | 6.29±9.98 | 4.21±7.53 | 0.36 |
| Score at 360days | 33.07±14.86 | 32.91±14.05 | 33.10±14.49 | 0.9487 |
Expressions of blood cytokines, Score of BODE, 6MWD, and Psychological field before and after treatment.
| Variables | Per-protocol set | |||
| BF tablet group | BY granule group | Placebo group | P-value | |
| n = 82 | n = 89 | n = 91 | ||
| IL-6 (logarithm) | ||||
| Before treatment | 4.29±1.60 | 4.96±1.90 | 4.79±1.77 | 0.0912 |
| After treatment | 4.34±1.66 | 3.87±1.21 | 4.31±1.68 | 0.1776 |
| IL-8 (logarithm) | ||||
| Before treatment | 5.18±2.11 | 5.79±2.30 | 5.69±2.35 | 0.1098 |
| After treatment | 5.00±2.03 | 4.96±1.83 | 4.67±1.92 | 0.7213 |
| IL-10 | ||||
| Before treatment | 48.00±117.16 | 73.73±223.03 | 269.81±1135.22 | 0.1668 |
| After treatment | 81.01±241.75 | 180.41±995.53 | 625.43±3620.71 | 0.4112 |
| IL-17 (logarithm) | ||||
| Before treatment | 2.47±0.76 | 2.69±0.81 | 2.52±0.64 | 0.3463 |
| After treatment | 2.35±0.71 | 2.28±0.62 | 2.64±0.83 | 0.0219 |
| P<0.05 for A VS C, P<0.05 for BY VS Placebo | ||||
| IL-1β(logarithm) | ||||
| Before treatment | 3.35±1.33 | 3.77±1.61 | 3.87±1.78 | 0.1013 |
| After treatment | 3.52±1.65 | 2.96±1.09 | 3.43±1.67 | 0.0776 |
| TGF-β1 (logarithm) | ||||
| Before treatment | 9.13±0.66 | 9.23±0.59 | 9.06±1.28 | 0.6813 |
| After treatment | 9.04±0.81 | 9.07±0.84 | 9.01±0.71 | 0.9174 |
| TNF-α(logarithm) | ||||
| Before treatment | 2.91±0.87 | 3.39±1.07 | 3.00±1.08 | 0.0563 |
| After treatment | 2.94±1.06 | 2.86±0.88 | 2.93±0.92 | 0.8333 |
| Cortisol | ||||
| Before treatment | 25.23±12.73 | 23.97±11.27 | 25.61±12.67 | 0.5928 |
| After treatment | 26.46±17.49 | 29.59±21.48 | 22.43±11.85 | 0.2123 |
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 3.22±1.91 | 3.14±1.98 | 3.12±1.56 | 0.8635 |
| After treatment | 2.90±1.78 | 2.61±1.80 | 2.54±1.63 | 0.3907 |
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 401.16±123.85 | 394.48±121.99 | 396.27±130.34 | 0.8416 |
| 90days | 403.88±115.52 | 416.01±124.73 | 412.34±94.58 | 0.6493 |
| 180days | 414.95±117.45 | 424.12±123.83 | 422.74±103.11 | 0.8462 |
|
| ||||
| Before treatment | 7.63±6.16 | 7.71±7.13 | 7.54±7.47 | 0.994 |
| After treatment | 4.78±4.02 | 6.30±8.40 | 6.92±9.50 | 0.1012 |
Introduction to treated drugs of TCH.
| Drug name | Name of Chinese Herbal Medications of the drug | Compound | Molecular Formula of the Compound | Molecular Weight | Main Efficacy of TCM |
| Bushen Yiqi granule, TCM agreement prescription, 5 g/bag equal to 32.5 g of decoction pieces. Batch numbers 1006380, 1006381, 1006382 | Radix Astragaliseu Hedysari | Astragaloside | C41H68O14 | 784.9702 | Tonifying kidney and qi, relieving asthma |
| Herba Epimedii | Icariin | C33H40O15 | 676.65 | ||
| Epimendin B | C38H48O19 | 808.78 | |||
| Epimendin C | C39H50O19 | 822.80 | |||
| Radix Rehmanniae Recens | Catalpol | C15H22O10 | 362.33 | ||
| Bushen Fangchuan Tablet, China Patent medicine, 0.25 g/tablet, Batch number 10100006 | Made from eight kinds of Chinese herbal medications including Herba Epimedii, Radix Rehmanniae Recens, Prepared Lateral Root of Aconite, psoralea corylifolia, the seed of Chinese dodder, prepared radix rehmanniae, Chinese yam, Orange peel. | Warming yang, Tonifying kidney | |||
| Approved by China: Z50020405 | |||||
Figure 3Total Ion chromatography, UV chromatography and content of main compositions of the preparation Bushen Fangchuan tablet by HPLC-Q/TOF MS-UV.
Content of main compositions of the preparation Bushen Yiqi granule.
| NO | Compound | Batch1 | Batch2 | Mean |
| (ug/mg granule) | (ug/mg granule) | (ug/mg granule) | ||
| 1 | Formononetin | 0.0943±0.0022 | 0.0979±0.0038 | 0.0961 |
| 2 | Calycosin | 0.167±0.011 | 0.172±0.004 | 0.17 |
| 3 | Motherwort glycosides | 0.221±0.009 | 0.187±0.006 | 0.204 |
| 4 | Catalpol | 1.97±0.21 | 2.05±0.02 | 2.01 |
| 5 | Hyperoside | 0.127±0.003 | 0.134±0.003 | 0.131 |
| 6 | Ononin | 0.0946±0.002 | 0.0939±0.001 | 0.0942 |
| 7 | Calycosin glycosides | 0.183±0.003 | 0.166±0.001 | 0.175 |
| 8 | Bao beans glycosides | 0.964±0.033 | 1.21±0.04 | 1.08 |
| 9 | Verbascoside | 0.246±0.005 | 0.319±0.004 | 0.283 |
| 10 | Icariin | 3.14±0.08 | 2.60±0.04 | 2.87 |
| 11 | Astragaloside | 1.17±0.10 | 1.12±0.00 | 1.15 |
| 12 | Epimendin B | 1.59±0.02 | 1.49±0.02 | 1.54 |
| 13 | Epimendin C | 3.01±0.22 | 2.65±0.02 | 2.83 |
| 14 | Astragalosides | 0.447±0.003 | 0.482±0.003 | 0.465 |
| 15 | Epimendin | 0.472±0.010 | 0.504±0.007 | 0.488 |
| 16 | Astragalosides | 0.479±0.003 | 0.488±0.003 | 0.484 |
Note: The results showed Icariin had the highest content, and then Epimendin C, Catalpol, Epimendin B, Astragaloside in order among chemical compositions of Bushen Yiqi granule.
Figure 4Mass Spectroscopy of Bushen Yiqi granule.
A. Analysis and appraisal of chemical compositions for the preparation Bushen Yiqi granule with the method of LC-ESI-Q-TOF-MS/MS. Note: The results showed 71 chemical compositions of Bushen Yiqi granule: Herba Epimedii(35), Astragaloside(23), Radix Rehmanniae Recens(13). B. Ion chromatogram and content of main compositions of the preparation Bushen Yiqi granule. Note: The results showed Icariin had the highest content, and then Epimendin C, Catalpol, Epimendin B, Astragaloside in order among chemical compositions of Bushen Yiqi granule.
Figure 5A possible biological mechanism of TCHMs for intervening COPD.