| Literature DB >> 25477988 |
Haiyin Huang1, Peilan Yang1, Jingjing Xue1, Jie Tang1, Liyu Ding2, Ying Ma2, Jie Wang1, Gordon H Guyatt3, Thuva Vanniyasingam3, Yuqing Zhang3.
Abstract
Purpose. To compare the efficacy of individualized herbal decoction with controlled decoction for individual patients with stable bronchiectasis. Methods. We conducted N-of-1 RCTs (single-patient, double-blind, randomized, multiple crossover design) in 3 patients with stable bronchiectasis. The primary outcome was patient self-rated symptom scores on visual analogue scales. Secondary outcome was 24-hour sputum volume. A clinical efficacy criterion which combined symptoms score and medication preference was also formulated. Results. All three patients showed various degrees of improvement on their symptoms and one patient's (Case 3) 24 h sputum volume decreased from 70 mL to 30 mL. However, no significant differences were found between individualized herbal decoction and control decoction on symptoms score, or on 24-hour sputum volume. One patient (Case 2) had clear preference for the individualized herbal decoction over the standard one with the confirmation after unblinding. We therefore considered this case as clinically important. Discussion. N-of-1 trials comply with individualized philosophy of TCM clinical practice and had good compliance. It is necessary to set up clinical efficacy criteria and to consider the interference of acute exacerbation.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25477988 PMCID: PMC4244929 DOI: 10.1155/2014/148730
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1The flow chart of the N-of-1 trials in the treatment of stable bronchiectasis by traditional Chinese medicine based on syndrome differentiation.
Figure 2The flow chart of the whole process including recruitment, enrollment, and completion of the pilot study.
Average symptom scores from the last week of each period and results of the statistical analyses.
| Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 21 | 28 | 15 |
| Pair1 CD | 17.14 | 27.29 | 13 |
| Pair1 ID | 17 | 23.57 | 13 |
| Pair2 ID | 17.43 | 23.86 | 12.9 |
| Pair2 CD | 16.67 | 28.43 | ∗ |
| Pair3 CD | 14 | 26.33 | 12.38 |
| Pair3 ID | 14 | 27.57 | 13.43 |
|
| 0.417 | ||
| 95% confidence interval** | (−1.05, |
CD: control decoction; ID: individualized decoction.
*Not available due to an acute exacerbation.
**These values were the results of one-sided paired Wilcoxon signed rank test for all the 3 cases.
No statistically significant differences in average symptom score between the two decoctions for each of the 3 cases and for the total 3 cases together.
Average 24 h sputum volume from the last week of each period and results of the statistical analyses.
| Case 1 (mL) | Case 2 (mL) | Case 3 (mL) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 10 | 62 | 40 |
| Pair1 CD | 5 | 60 | 22.5 |
| Pair1 ID | 5 | 53 | 38.6 |
| Pair2 ID | 7 | 55 | 30 |
| Pair2 CD | 5 | 65 | ∗ |
| Pair3 CD | 3 | 61 | 38.6 |
| Pair3 ID | 4 | 60 | 34.3 |
|
| 0.3674 | ||
| 95% confidence interval** | (−7.55, |
CD: control decoction; ID: individualized decoction.
*Not available due to an acute exacerbation.
**These values were the results of one-sided paired Wilcoxon signed rank test for all the 3 cases.
No statistically significant differences in average 24 h sputum volume between the two decoctions for each of the 3 cases and for the total 3 cases together.