| Literature DB >> 34721642 |
Yan Jin1, Yanzheng Wang2, Sai Wang3, Qiongqiong Zhao4, Donghua Zhang5, Xuan Feng6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the clinical efficacy and relevant mechanism of Tripterygium glycosides combined with low molecular weight heparin calcium (LMWH) in the treatment of Henoch-Schönlein purpura nephritis (HSPN) in children.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34721642 PMCID: PMC8553442 DOI: 10.1155/2021/7223613
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Comparison of clinical efficacy between two groups.
| Group | Cases ( | Cure | Excellent | Effective | Invalid | Total effective rate (%) | Recurrence rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 32 | 10 (31%) | 8 (25%) | 4 (12.5%) | 10 (31%) | 69 | 15 (47%) |
| Observation group | 32 | 15 (47%) | 8 (25%) | 7 (22%) | 2 (6%) | 94 | 4 (12.5%) |
Comparison of the indexes of urine RBC and 24 h urine protein between two groups.
| Group | Cases ( | Urine RBC ( | 24 h urine protein (g) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
| Control group | 32 | 219.9 ± 33.01 | 94.83 ± 8.28a | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.01a |
| Observation group | 32 | 205.0 ± 20.28 | 43.40 ± 9.22a | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.02a |
|
| 0.6661 | 7.191 | 0.7276 | 5.376 | |
|
| 0.5418 | 0.002 | 0.5072 | 0.0058 | |
aCompared with before treatment, P < 0.05.
Comparison of the indexes of PT and APTT between two groups.
| Group | Cases ( | PT (s) | APTT (s) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
| Control group | 32 | 12.4 ± 1.01 | 12.7 ± 0.96 | 23.73 ± 0.80 | 25.07 ± 0.48 |
| Observation group | 32 | 12.63 ± 0.74 | 13.87 ± 0.35 | 23.73 ± 0.97 | 28.27 ± 0.57a |
|
| 0.3222 | 1.969 | 0 | 7.496 | |
|
| 0.7634 | 0.1203 | >0.99 | 0.0017 | |
aCompared with before treatment, P < 0.05.
Comparison of the indexes of PLT and FIB between two groups.
| Group | Cases ( | PLT (х 1010/L) | FIB (g/L) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
| Control group | 32 | 28.67 ± 0.99 | 26.39 ± 0.48a | 3.38 ± 0.10 | 2.78 ± 0.07a |
| Observation group | 32 | 28.68 ± 1.22 | 24.15 ± 0.44a | 3.4 ± 0.11 | 2.70 ± 0.06a |
|
| 0.011 | 5.959 | 0.2437 | 1.488 | |
|
| 0.9917 | 0.004 | 0.8194 | 0.2109 | |
aCompared with before treatment, P < 0.05.
Comparison of kidney damage between the two groups.
| Group | Cases ( | Before treatment | After 4 weeks of treatment | After 3 months of treatment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kidney damage | No kidney damage | Kidney damage | No kidney damage | Kidney damage | No kidney damage | ||
| Control group | 32 | 3 (9.37%) | 29 (90.62%) | 8 (25%) | 24 (75%) | 13 (40.62%) | 19 (59.38%) |
| Observation group | 32 | 2 (6.25%) | 30 (93.75%) | 6 (18.75%) | 26 (81.25%) | 3 (10%)a | 27 (90%) |
aCompared with the control group, P < 0.05.