| Literature DB >> 34707357 |
Yujin Choi1, Ae-Ran Kim2, Ji-Yoon Lee3, Hae Sook Kim3, Changsop Yang1, Jae Kwang Kim4, Younghoon Go4, In Chul Jung3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The potential effects of herbal medicine for patients with cognitive disorders have been reported in various human and animal studies. This study aimed to explore the effect of herbal medicine treatment according to the Korean Medicine (KM) pattern identification for patients with mild cognitive impairment and early dementia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia who planned to receive herbal medicine treatment were enrolled. Herbal formulae were prescribed based on the KM pattern for 12-24 weeks. Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery II (SNSB-II) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were assessed at the baseline, after 12 weeks, and after 24 weeks (Trial registration: cris.nih.go.kr, KCT0004799).Entities:
Keywords: Korean medicine; herbal medicine; mild cognitive impairment; mild dementia; observational study; traditional east Asian medicine
Year: 2021 PMID: 34707357 PMCID: PMC8544266 DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S333569
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat ISSN: 1176-6328 Impact factor: 2.570
Figure 1Flow chart.
Symptoms and Signs of the Four Korean Medicine Patterns in Patients with Cognitive Disorders
| Categories | Symptoms and Signs | Patterns |
|---|---|---|
| Behavioral/Psychological Symptoms | Slow to react | Qi-deficiency |
| Lethargic | Qi-deficiency | |
| Easily angry or irritable | Fire-heat | |
| Aggressive behavior | Fire-heat | |
| Body Energy/Shape | Easily get tired | Qi-deficiency |
| Weak voice | Qi-deficiency | |
| Emaciated | Yin-deficiency | |
| Cold/Heat | Hot flush | Yin-deficiency |
| Prefers to drink cool water | Fire-heat | |
| Head | Feels heavy in the head | Phlegm-dampness |
| Buzzing in the ears | Yin-deficiency | |
| Face | Bloodshot eyes | Fire-heat |
| Excessive sputum | Phlegm-dampness | |
| Dry mouth | Yin-deficiency | |
| Chest | Chest congestion | Phlegm-dampness |
| Shortness of breath on exertion | Qi-deficiency | |
| Digestion | Feels nauseous | Phlegm-dampness |
| Feels bloated | Phlegm-dampness | |
| Urine/Stool | Dark urine | Fire-heat |
| Hard stool | Yin-deficiency | |
| Tongue diagnosis* | Pink tongue + thin white coating | Qi-deficiency |
| Red tongue + little amount of coating | Yin-deficiency | |
| Pale swollen tongue + thick white coating | Phlegm-dampness | |
| Red tongue + yellow coating | Fire-heat | |
| Pulse diagnosis* | Fine and weak pulse (+sunken pulse) | Qi-deficiency |
| Fine pulse (+rapid pulse) | Yin-deficiency | |
| Slippery pulse | Phlegm-dampness | |
| String-like pulse (+rapid pulse) | Fire-heat |
Notes: The symptoms and signs of the four patterns presented are based on the Pattern Identification Tool for Cognitive Disorder (PIT-C) version 2.1. Modified from Lee JY, Kim H, Seo YK, Kang HW, Kang WC, Jung IC. A research to evaluate the reliability and validity of pattern identifications tool for cognitive disorder: a clinical study protocol. J Orient Neuropsychiatry. 2018;29(4):255–266. Copyright © 2018 by The Korean Society of Oriental Neuropsychiatry. All rights reserved. CC This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ().15 Each pattern includes five items of symptoms and signs, and each item scores from 0 to 4 (0, Not at all; 1, Slightly; 2, moderately; 3, Very; and 4, Extremely). *Tongue and pulse diagnosis are not included in the pattern score calculation.
The Herbal Ingredients and Composition Ratio of Formulae
| Formula Name | Herbal Name | Source Species | Parts Used | Composition Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yukmijihwang-tang | Rehmanniae Radix Preparata | Root | 28.6% | |
| Dioscoreae Rhizoma | Rhizome | 14.3% | ||
| Corni Fructus | Fruit | 14.3% | ||
| Poria Sclerotium | Sclerotium | 14.3% | ||
| Moutan Radicis Cortex | Rhizodermis | 14.3% | ||
| Alismatis Rhizoma | Rhizome | 14.3% | ||
| Samhwangsasim-tang | Rhei Radix et Rhizoma | Root and rhizome | 40.1% | |
| Coptidis Rhizoma | Rhizome | 29.9% | ||
| Scutellariae Radix | Root | 29.9% | ||
| Palmul-tang | Ginseng Radix | Root | 12.5% | |
| Atractylodis Rhizoma Alba | Rhizome | 12.5% | ||
| Poria Sclerotium | Sclerotium | 12.5% | ||
| Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma | Root and rhizome | 12.5% | ||
| Angelicae Gigantis Radix | Root | 12.5% | ||
| Cnidii Rhizoma | Rhizome | 12.5% | ||
| Paeoniae Radix | Paeonia lactiflora Pall. | Root | 12.5% | |
| Rehmanniae Radix Preparata | Root | 12.5% | ||
| Banhasasim-tang | Pinelliae Tuber | Tuber | 24.5% | |
| Scutellariae Radix | Root | 14.6% | ||
| Ginseng Radix | Root | 14.6% | ||
| Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma | Root and rhizome | 14.6% | ||
| Zingiberis Rhizoma | Rhizome | 12.2% | ||
| Coptidis Rhizoma | Rhizome | 4.8% | ||
| Zizyphi Fructus | Fruit | 14.6% | ||
| Yukgunja-tang | Atractylodis Rhizoma Alba | Rhizome | 15.7% | |
| Poria Sclerotium | Sclerotium | 15.7% | ||
| Pinelliae Tuber | Tuber | 15.7% | ||
| Citri Unshius Pericarpium | Pericarpium | 15.7% | ||
| Ginseng Radix | Root | 15.7% | ||
| Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma | Root and rhizome | 5.9% | ||
| Zingiberis Rhizoma Recens | Rhizoma | 7.9% | ||
| Zizyphi Fructus | Fruit | 7.9% |
Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics
| SHS (n=6) | PMT (n=5) | Total (n=20) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, y | 70.0 ± 6.9 | 73.6 ± 2.2 | 71.0 ± 5.1 | |
| Gender, n (%) | Male | 1 (16.7%) | 1 (20.0%) | 3 (15.0%) |
| Female | 5 (83.3%) | 4 (80.0%) | 17 (85.0%) | |
| Education | < 6 years | 3 (50.0%) | 2 (40.0%) | 8 (40.0%) |
| ≥ 6 years | 3 (50.0%) | 3 (60.0%) | 12 (60.0%) | |
| Employment | Employed | 2 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 6 (30.0%) |
| Homemaker | 2 (33.3%) | 2 (40.0%) | 8 (40.0%) | |
| Unemployed | 2 (33.3%) | 3 (60.0%) | 6 (30.0%) | |
| Medical history | Hypertension | 4 (66.7%) | 4 (80.0%) | 14 (70.0%) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 1 (16.7%) | 2 (40.0%) | 7 (35.0%) | |
| Hyperlipidemia | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (40.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | |
| BMI | 24.6 ± 1.8 | 23.4 ± 3.1 | 25.2 ± 2.9 | |
| MCI subtypes | aMCI (single) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (20.0%) | 3 (15.0%) |
| aMCI (multiple) | 1 (16.7%) | 1 (20.0%) | 6 (30.0%) | |
| naMCI (single) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (20.0%) | 3 (15.0%) | |
| naMCI (multiple) | 3 (50.0%) | 1 (20.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | |
| Unspecified | 2 (33.3%) | 1 (20.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | |
| CDR-SB (0–18) | 3.2 ± 0.4 | 3.3 ± 0.4 | 3.2 ± 0.3 | |
| GDS | GDS 2 | 5 (83.3%) | 4 (80.0%) | 16 (80.0%) |
| GDS 3 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (5.0%) | |
| GDS 4 | 1 (16.7%) | 1 (20.0%) | 3 (15.0%) | |
| MoCA (0–30) | 18.0 ± 2.6 | 18.4 ± 3.0 | 17.6 ± 4.2 | |
| SNSB-II five domains T score | Attention | 45.9 ± 7.0 | 52.0 ± 12.1 | 47.4 ± 10.3 |
| Language | 43.9 ± 13.0 | 41.8 ± 10.3 | 37.8 ± 17.3 | |
| Visuospatial | 38.2 ± 11.9 | 47.7 ± 11.9 | 39.8 ± 19.3 | |
| Memory | 43.5 ± 10.8 | 40.1 ± 12.5 | 39.7 ± 12.7 | |
| Frontal/executive | 45.1 ± 11.1 | 49.0 ± 8.3 | 42.9 ± 18.5 | |
| HIS (0–18) | 0.7 ± 0.8 | 1.8 ± 1.1 | 1.0 ± 0.9 | |
| SGDepS (0–15) | 9.8 ± 6.0 | 6.6 ± 6.4 | 6.5 ± 5.2 | |
| KM Pattern score (0–20) | Qi-deficiency | 12.3 ± 6.2 | 5.8 ± 3.8 | 8.8 ± 6.3 |
| Yin-deficiency | 8.3 ± 4.2 | 5.2 ± 3.1 | 6.0 ± 3.8 | |
| Phlegm-dampness | 9.5 ± 5.3 | 2.6 ± 3.6 | 5.8 ± 5.2 | |
| Fire-heat | 11.5 ± 4.2 | 3.2 ± 2.5 | 7.0 ± 4.4 |
Notes: Data are presented in mead ± standard deviation or frequency (%).
Abbreviations: SHS, Samhwangsasim-tang; PMT, Palmul-tang; BMI, body mass index; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; aMCI, amnestic mild cognitive impairment; naMCI, non-amnestic mild cognitive impairment; CDR-SB, Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes; GDS, Global Deterioration Scale; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; SNSB-II, Seoul neuropsychological screening battery II; HIS, Hachinski’s Ischemia Score; SGDepS, short version of geriatric depression scale.
SNSB-II Five Cognitive Function Domains T Score, and SGDepS Before and After the Treatment
| Week 0 (n=12) | Week 12 (n=12) | Week 24 (n=11) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50.79 ± 8.84 | 56.14 ± 8.84 | 52.36 ± 9.08 | 0.0785 | |
| Difference | 5.34 (0.29, 10.40) | 1.56 (−3.65, 6.77) | ||
| | 0.0947 | 0.8090 | ||
| 43.09 ± 9.46 | 53.36 ± 9.46 | 57.37 ± 9.88 | 0.0006 | |
| Difference | 10.27 (2.40, 18.14) | 14.28 (6.23, 22.33) | ||
| | 0.0333 | 0.0037 | ||
| 45.22 ± 9.27 | 55.06 ± 9.27 | 54.91 ± 9.63 | 0.0022 | |
| Difference | 9.84 (3.19, 16.48) | 9.69 (2.86, 16.51) | ||
| | 0.0150 | 0.0200 | ||
| 40.93 ± 11.52 | 51.74 ± 11.52 | 56.61 ± 11.75 | <0.0001 | |
| Difference | 10.80 (5.30, 16.30) | 15.68 (10.00, 21.35) | ||
| | 0.0015 | <0.0001 | ||
| 48.15 ± 8.36 | 52.74 ± 8.36 | 53.98 ± 8.53 | 0.0074 | |
| Difference | 4.59 (0.58, 8.59) | 5.82 (1.69, 9.95) | ||
| | 0.0662 | 0.0208 | ||
| 7.25 ± 5.74 | 5.75 ± 5.74 | 6.84 ± 5.77 | 0.0645 | |
| Difference | −1.50 (−2.87, −0.13) | −0.41 (−1.83, 1.01) | ||
| | 0.0822 | 0.8187 | ||
Notes: Data are presented in mead ± standard deviation or mean (95% CI). Least-square means and mean differences were calculated by the linear mixed model for the repeated measure. Pairwise comparison p-values were adjusted by Tukey’s method.
Abbreviations: SNSB-II, Seoul neuropsychological screening battery II; SGDepS, short version of geriatric depression scale.
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Korean Medicine (KM) Pattern Scores Before and After the Treatment
| Week 0 (n=15) | Week 6 (n=15) | Week 12 (n=12) | Week 24 (n=11) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17.73 ± 5.28 | 21.40 ± 5.28 | 21.96 ± 5.42 | 24.03 ± 5.48 | <0.0001 | |
| Difference | 3.67 (2.17, 5.17) | 4.23 (2.60, 5.86) | 6.29 (4.61, 7.97) | ||
| | 0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||
| 9.67 ± 6.09 | 10.13 ± 6.09 | 9.43 ± 6.32 | 8.85 ± 6.41 | 0.7319 | |
| Difference | 0.47 (−1.60, 2.53) | −0.24 (−2.49, 2.01) | −0.81 (−3.13, 1.50) | ||
| | 0.9676 | 0.9963 | 0.8915 | ||
| 7.00 ± 3.99 | 5.67 ± 3.99 | 7.62 ± 4.27 | 5.99 ± 4.39 | 0.2087 | |
| Difference | −1.33 (−3.28, 0.62) | 0.62 (−1.49, 2.73) | −1.01 (−3.18, 1.17) | ||
| | 0.5156 | 0.9337 | 0.7839 | ||
| 6.60 ± 5.02 | 6.53 ± 5.02 | 5.75 ± 5.32 | 3.88 ± 5.44 | 0.1053 | |
| Difference | −0.07 (−2.27, 2.14) | −0.85 (−3.23, 1.54) | −2.72 (−5.18, −0.26) | ||
| | 0.9999 | 0.8891 | 0.1321 | ||
| 8.07 ± 4.74 | 8.07 ± 4.74 | 7.94 ± 4.90 | 6.02 ± 4.96 | 0.0487 | |
| Difference | 0.00 (−1.52, 1.52) | −0.13 (−1.79, 1.53) | −2.04 (−3.75, −0.34) | ||
| | 0.9999 | 0.9985 | 0.0902 | ||
Notes: Data are presented in mead ± standard deviation or mean (95% CI). Least-square means and mean differences were calculated by the linear mixed model for the repeated measure. Pairwise comparison p-values were adjusted by Tukey’s method.
Figure 2Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score for patients over time.
Integrative Medicine Patient Satisfaction Scale (IMPSS) After the Treatment
| Week 12 (n=12) | Week 24 (n=11) | |
|---|---|---|
| Very satisfied | 3 (25.0%) | 2 (18.5%) |
| Satisfied | 3 (25.0%) | 5 (45.5%) |
| Neutral | 6 (50.0%) | 4 (36.4%) |
| Dissatisfied | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Very dissatisfied | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Note: Data are presented in frequency (%).