| Literature DB >> 30355325 |
Masao Suzuki1,2, Shigeo Muro3, Motonari Fukui4, Naoto Ishizaki5, Susumu Sato6, Tetsuhiro Shiota7, Kazuo Endo8, Tomoko Suzuki9, Tadamichi Mitsuma9, Michiaki Mishima10, Toyohiro Hirai6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are an increasing number of evidences that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a systemic illness and that bodyweight loss is its prominent manifestation. We focused on the nutritional outcomes to find out the effectiveness of acupuncture on nutritional state of COPD patients and on their prognosis in our previous interventional study.Entities:
Keywords: Acupuncture; COPD; Nutritional state; Proinflammatory cytokine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30355325 PMCID: PMC6201549 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-018-2341-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Baseline subject characteristics
| PAG ( | RAG (n = 34) | Mean difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (M/F) | 32/2 | 31/3 | |
| Age yr | 72.5 [7.4] | 72.7 [6.8] | 0.2 |
| MRC | 2.9 [1.1] | 3.3 [1.0] | 0.4 |
| Body Weight (kg) | 56.0 [13.8] | 54.6 [10.6] | −1.4 |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 21.1 [3.9] | 21.2 [3.9] | 0.1 |
| Brinkman Index | 1433.9 [759.8] | 1292.5 [526.4] | −141.4 |
| GOLD criteria | |||
| I | 0 | 0 | |
| II | 13 | 6 | |
| III | 8 | 16 | |
| IV | 13 | 12 | |
| 3.0 [0.9] | 3.2 [0.7] | 0.2 | |
| HOT | 11 | 9 | |
| Pulmonary function | |||
| FVC (L) | 3.0 [0.7] | 2.8 [0.6] | −0.2 |
| FEV1 (L) | 1.2 [0.4] | 1.0 [0.3] | −0.2 |
| % FEV1(%) | 48.0 [16.5] | 44.5 [16.3] | −3.5 |
PAG placebo acupuncture group, RAG real acupuncture group, MRC medical research council, BMI body mass index, GOLD global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease, HOT home oxygen therapy, FVC forced vital capacity, FEV1 forced expiratory volume in 1 second, % FEV1 forced expiratory volume in 1 second in predicted
Changes in the nutritional outcome and prognosis
| Baseline | After 12 weeks | Change from baseline to post treatment measurements | MD |
| Effect size ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main measurement of nutritional outcome | ||||||
| Body Weight (kg) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 56.8 [13.8] | 56.3 [13.0] | −0.5 [1.4] | 3.00 | 2.00, 4.00 | 2.87 |
| RAG (n 30) | 55.5 [10.4] | 58.0 [10.8] | 2.5 [0.4] | |||
| %IBW: ideal body weight (%) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 96.7 [17.7] | 95.9 [16.5] | −0.8 [2.4] | 5.20 | 3.52, 7.00 | 1.51 |
| RAG (n 30) | 98.6 [17.7] | 103.0 [18.3] | 4.4 [4.3] | |||
| Prognosis outcome measurement | ||||||
| BODE index | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 3.3 [2.4] | 3.3 [2.4] | −0.03[1.0] | −1.17 | −1.55, − 0.55 | 1.06 |
| RAG (n 30) | 3.9 [2.4] | 2.7 [1.7] | −1.2 [1.2] | |||
| BMI | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 0.5 [0.5] | 0.4 [0.5] | −0.1 [1.3] | −0.11 | ||
| RAG (n 30) | 0.4 [0.5] | 0.2 [0.4] | −0.2 [0.5] | |||
| %FEV1 | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 1.5 [1.1] | 1.7 [1.1] | 0.2 [0.4] | −0.29 | ||
| RAG (n 30) | 1.8 [1.0] | 1.6 [1.0] | −0.1 [0.6] | |||
| mMRC | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 0.9 [1.1] | 0.8 [1.1] | −0.1[0.5] | −0.51 | ||
| RAG (n 30) | 1.2 [1.0] | 0.6 [0.8] | −0.6 [0.7] | |||
| 6MWD | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 0.4 [0.7] | 0.4 [0.7] | 0.0 [0.3] | −0.30 | ||
| RAG (n 30) | 0.5 [0.9] | 0.3 [0.5] | −0.3 [0.7] | |||
MD mean difference, %IBW ideal body weight (%), BODE index BMI (B); degree of air flow obstruction (O); functional dyspnea (D); and exercise capacity (E), assessed by the 6MWD. BMI body mass index, %FEV1 % forced expiratory volume in 1 s, mMRC Modified Medical Research Council, 6MWD 6 minute walk distance
Fig. 1Difference of body weight between baseline and after 12 weeks for each group is shown. The difference in the body weight in the RAG (2.5 [0.4]) was statistically significant compared with that in the PAG (− 0.5 [1.4]) (mean difference 3.00, 95% CI 2.00 to 4.00 by ANCOVA). PAG; Placebo Acupuncture Group, RAG; Real Acupuncture Group
Fig. 2Difference of BODE index between baseline and after 12 weeks for each group is shown. The difference in the BODE index in the RAG (− 1.2 [1.2]) was statistically significant compared with that in the PAG (− 0.03 [1.0]) (mean difference − 1.17, 95% CI -1.55 to − 0.55 by ANCOVA). PAG; Placebo Acupuncture Group, RAG; Real Acupuncture Group
Changes in the body composition and muscles strength
| Baseline | After 12 weeks | Change from baseline to post treatment measurements | MD |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurements of body composition | ||||||
| MAC (cm) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 24.3 [3.6] | 24.0 [3.6] | − 0.3[1.1] | 1.77 | 1.15, 2.39 | 1.42 |
| RAG (n 30) | 24.7 [3.4] | 26.1 [3.9] | 1.4 [1.3] | |||
| TSF (mm) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 11.3 [5.5] | 9.9 [5.2] | −1.4 [2.5] | 5.56 | 4.10, 7.03 | 1.92 |
| RAG (n 30) | 12.0 [4.9] | 16.2 [6.2] | 4.2 [3.3] | |||
| AMC (cm) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 20.9 [2.8] | 21.0 [2.8] | 0.1 [1.0] | 0.10 | −0.44, 0.64 | 0.10 |
| RAG (n 30) | 21.1 [2.6] | 21.3 [2.9] | 0.2 [1.1] | |||
| SSF (mm) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 13.4 [5.1] | 12.8 [5.2] | −0.6 [2.8] | 3.55 | 2.04, 5.05 | 1.22 |
| RAG (n 30) | 15.9 [5.9] | 18.9 [6.3] | 3.0 [3.1] | |||
| QC (AP 10 cm) (cm) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 38.3 [4.6] | 38.1 [4.6] | −0.2 [0.7] | 1.86 | 1.13, 2.59 | 1.34 |
| RAG (n 30) | 37.9 [4.2] | 39.6 [4.6] | 1.7 [1.9] | |||
| Muscles strength | ||||||
| Grip strength (Right) (kg) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 28.9 [6.1] | 28.6 [5.5] | −0.3 [2.3] | 1.55 | 0.42, 2.67 | 0.73 |
| RAG (n 30) | 27.5 [6.2] | 28.8 [5.9] | 1.3 [2.1] | |||
| Grip strength (Left) (kg) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 28.4 [5.4] | 27.4 [4.9] | −1.0 [2.5] | 1.94 | 0.73, 3.14 | 0.85 |
| RAG (n 30) | 26.5 [6.4] | 27.5 [6.6] | 1.0 [2.2] | |||
| Respiratory muscle strength | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 63.5 [21.5] | 61.8 [22.9] | −1.7 [12.2] | 36.09 | 26.41, 45.77 | 1.90 |
| RAG (n 30) | 59.5 [21.6] | 93.9 [32.2] | 34.4 [24.3] | |||
| MIP (H2Ocm) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 56.4 [20.6] | 55.4 [19.5] | −1.0 [11.9] | 14.83 | 8.49, 21.16 | 1.19 |
| RAG (n 30) | 60.8 [20.6] | 74.6 [15.8] | 13.8 [13.0] | |||
MD mean difference, MAC midupper arm circumference, TSF triceps skinfolds, AMC arm muscle circumference, SSF scapula skinfolds, QC Quadriceps circumference, MEP maximum expiratory mouth pressure, MIP maximum inspiratory mouth pressure
Changes in the Nutritional Hematological and Inflammation Biomarkers
| Baseline | After 12 weeks | Change from baseline to post treatment measurements | MD |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nutritional Hematological | ||||||
| RBP (mg/dL) | ||||||
| PAG (n 20) | 3.0 [0.7] | 3.0 [0.6] | 0.02 [0.5] | 0.98 | 0.48, 1.46 | 1.60 |
| RAG (n 22) | 3.3 [1.5] | 4.3 [1.3] | 1.0 [0.7] | |||
| PA (mg/dL) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 23.4 [3.7] | 22.9 [4.6] | −0.5 [2.6] | 2.84 | 0.93, 4.76 | 0.77 |
| RAG (n 30) | 23.0 [4.9] | 25.4 [6.7] | 2.4 [4.7] | |||
| Tf (mg/dL) | ||||||
| PAG (n 20) | 218.9 [76.6] | 208.0 [67.9] | −10.9 [8.8] | 54.1 | 34.53, 71.82 | 2.94 |
| RAG (n 22) | 216.4 [38.1] | 259.6 [45.0] | 43.2 [24.0] | |||
| Hb (g/dL) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 14.1 [1.1] | 13.9 [1.2] | −0.2 [0.9] | 0.90 | 0.54, 1.27 | 1.17 |
| RAG (n 30) | 13.9 [1.6] | 14.6 [1.3] | 0.7 [0.6] | |||
| Inflammation Biomarkers | ||||||
| Hs-CRP (ng/mL) | ||||||
| PAG (n 12) | 735.3 [445.6] | 717.8 [396.6] | −17.4 [71.7] | − 576.58 | − 610.60, −44.23 | 1.57 |
| RAG (n 10) | 1109.3 [437.2] | 515.3 [247.6] | − 594.0 [542.4] | |||
| TNF-α (pg/mL) | ||||||
| PAG (n 12) | 2.5 [0.9] | 2.8 [1.0] | 0.4 [0.8] | −2.09 | −2.44, −0.42 | 1.56 |
| RAG (n 10) | 3.3 [1.5] | 1.6 [1.2] | −1.7 [1.8] | |||
| IL-6 (pg/mL) | ||||||
| PAG (n 12) | 2.9 [1.0] | 3.6 [1.4] | 0.7 [1.5] | −2.34 | −3.13, −0.87 | 1.55 |
| RAG (n 10) | 3.3 [1.1] | 1.7 [1.0] | −1.7 [1.6] | |||
| SAA (μg/mL) | ||||||
| PAG (n 12) | 5.0 [1.7] | 5.5 [2.4] | 0.5 [1.0] | −2.10 | −3.34, −1.02 | 1.75 |
| RAG (n 10) | 4.4 [1.7] | 2.7 [0.8] | −1.6 [1.4] | |||
| COHb (%) | ||||||
| PAG (n 32) | 1.4 [1.0] | 1.9 [1.1] | 0.5 [0.9] | −1.13 | −1.51, −0.69 | 1.10 |
| RAG (n 30) | 1.4 [1.2] | 0.8 [0.6] | −0.6 [1.1] | |||
MD mean difference, RBP Retinol-Binding Protein, PA Pre-Albumin, Tf Transferrin, Hb Hemoglobin, Hs-CRP High sensitivity C-reactive protein, TNF-α Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha, IL-6 Interleukin 6, SAA Serum Amyloid A, COHb carboxyhemoglobin
Associations among the biomarkers at change from baseline to post treatment
| Weight | %IBW | Hb | Prealbumin | Tf | RBP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COHb |
|
| − 0.25 | −0.13 |
| −0.27 |
| Hs-CRP | −0.30 | −0.31 | − 0.35 |
| 0.02 |
|
| TNF-α |
|
| − 0.37 |
| 0.11 |
|
| IL-6 | −0.35 | −0.36 |
|
| 0.10 |
|
| SAA |
|
|
|
| 0.13 | −0.27 |
Significant associations (p < 0.05) are Bold and denoted with cross
COHb Carboxyhemoglobin, Hs-CRP High sensitivity C-reactive protein, TNF-α Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha, IL-6 Interleukin 6, SAA Serum Amyloid A, %IBW Percent Ideal Body Weight, Hb Hemoglobin, Tf Transferrin, RBP Retinol-Binding Protein