| Literature DB >> 35087595 |
Suna Zi1,2, Haiyin Huang1, Peilan Yang1, Minhua Xu1, Yingen Wu3, Zhenwei Wang1, Fei Ge1, Xinlin Chen4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to study the effects of heat-clearing Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the stable stage of bronchiectasis via N-of-1 trials.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35087595 PMCID: PMC8789431 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6690638
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 trial of an individual patient in this study.
Clinical criteria for definite N-of-1 trial.
| 1. | Clinicians have high confidence in the decisions made after the N-of-1 trials (1 or 2 on a 7-point scale) |
| 2. | N-of-l trial interruption before completing three treatment pairs because of the clinician's belief that drug effectiveness had been established or refuted (perceived large treatment effect or severe side effects, both confirmed after breaking the code, or low frequency of treatment end-points) |
Figure 2The flow chart of the whole process including the number of cases recruited, enrolled, and completed in this study.
Clinical and demographic characteristics of the 21 completers/partial-completers.
| Gender (male/female) | 21 (13/8) |
| Age in years, mean (minimum/maximum) | 49 (28/70) |
| Bronchiectasis in chest CT (unilateral/bilateral) | (15/6) |
| TCM syndrome differentiation (lung and spleen deficiency syndrome/Qi and Yin deficiency syndrome) | (5/16) |
| Concomitant medication (yes/no) | (4/17) |
| Baseline of the outcomes | Mean (SD) |
| Symptoms scores (scores) | 2.78 (0.64) |
| CAT scores (scores) | 17.33 (6.30) |
| 24-hour sputum volume (ml) | 50.05 (64.97) |
Comparison of the individual data (individualized decoction versus control decoction) of 15 cases who completed three pairs of the N-of-1 trials in each outcome.
| Patient number | Likert scale score of symptoms mean difference and 90% CI |
| 24-hour sputum volume mean difference and 90% CI |
| CAT scores mean difference and 90% CI |
| TCM syndrome scores mean difference and 90% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | −0.11 (−0.35, 0.13) | 0.320 | −10.00 (−26.86, 6.86) | 0.225 | 0.17 (−4.48, 4.81) | 0.926 | −0.67 (−2.61, 1.28) | 0.423 |
| Case 2 | 0.14 (−0.23, 0.51) | 0.389 | −1.50 (−3.73, 0.73) | 0.188 | 0.17 (−1.12, 1.45) | 0.742 | 0.67 (−3.58, 4.91) | 0.691 |
| Case 3 | 0.06 (0.26, 0.38) | 0.637 | −23.33 (−65.76, 19.09) | 0.250 | 1.33 (0.36, 2.31) | 0.057 | 0.00 (−1.69, 1.69) | 1.000 |
| Case 4 | −0.22 (−0.48, 0.05) | 0.137 | −4.00 (−16.16, 8.16) | 0.438 | −1.00 (−7.08, 5.08) | 0.678 | −2.33 (−7.48, 2.82) | 0.317 |
| Case 5 | −0.30 (−0.88.0.29) | 0.280 | −1.67 (−14.54, 11.21) | 0.742 | 1.33 (−2.07, 4.74) | 0.371 | −3.0 (−8.84, 2.84) | 0.272 |
| Case 6 | 0.35 (−0.89, 1.58) | 0.497 | 1.667 (−8.46, 11.80) | 0.678 | 1.33 (−4.65, 7.31) | 0.582 | 4.00 (−5.39, 13.39) | 0.339 |
| Case 7 | 2.02 (−0.67, 4.71) | 0.159 | ※ | ※ | 7.67 (0.065, 15.269) | 0.099 | 7.67 (−0.30, 15.63) | 0.107 |
| Case 8 | 0.13 (−0.76, 1.01) | 0.715 | ※ | ※ | 0.50 (−1.73, 2.73) | 0.580 | 0.67 (−1.28, 2.61) | 0.423 |
| Case 9 | 0.19 (−0.40, 0.78) | 0.444 | 7.22 (−19.78, 34.22) | 0.517 | 1.33 (−2.66, 9.99) | 0.233 | 5.00 (−0.84, 10.84) | 0.130 |
| Case 11 | −0.08 (−1.25, 1.09) | 0.859 | −1.11 (−50.21, 47.99) | 0.953 | 0.00 (−6.74, 6.74) | 1.000 | −0.33 (−6.25, 5.59) | 0.885 |
| Case 13 | −0.11 (−0.27, 0.05) | 0.184 | 0.56 (−7.56, 8.67) | 0.860 | −2.33 (−5.84, 1.18) | 0.192 | −1.00 (−5.46, 3.46) | 0.580 |
| Case 14 | 0.05 (−0.96, 1.06) | 0.894 | −3.33 (−29.09, 22.42) | 0.742 | −0.33 (−4.58, 3.91) | 0.840 | 0.33 (−1.61, 2.28) | 0.667 |
| Case 15 | 0.03 (−0.34, 0.39) | 0.839 | −3.89 (−12.92, 5.14) | 0.336 | −0.67 (−1.64, 0.31) | 0.184 | 0.33 (−2.24, 2.91) | 0.742 |
| Case 17 | 0.40 (−0.80, 1.61) | 0.433 | −6.11 (−26.44, 14.22) | 0.473 | 0.00 (−7.35, 7.35) | 1.000 | 3.00 (−3.08, 9.08) | 0.286 |
| Case 20 | 0.07 (−0.05, 0.19) | 0.237 | 0.56 (−1.07, 2.18) | 0.423 | 0.67 (−0.31, 1.64) | 0.184 | 0.33 (−0.64, 1.31) | 0.423 |
Note. ※ means not available.
Comparison of group data between the two decoctions in each outcome.
| Group level data ( | Individualized decoction | Individualized decoction removed of heat-clearing drugs | Mean difference and 95% CI |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symptoms score on Likert scale | 2.08 ± 0.68 | 1.94 ± 0.69 | 0.19 (0.01, 0.37) | 2.20 | 0.040▲ |
| Respiratory symptoms score on Likert scale | 2.11 ± 0.75 | 1.98 ± 0.78 | 0.15 (−0.05, 0.35) | 1.57 | 0.132 |
| 24-hour sputum volume (ml) | 31.52 ± 40.54 | 33.74 ± 44.44 | −1.46 (−3.59, 0.67) | −1.40 | 0.168 |
| CAT scores | 13.95 ± 6.97 | 13.66 ± 6.57 | 0.86 (0.042, 1.67) | 2.19 | 0.040 |
| TCM syndrome scores (lung and spleen Qi deficiency syndrome) | 7.50 ± 3.12 | 7.75 ± 4.69 | −0.73 (−5.70, 4.24) | −0.40 | 0.704 |
| TCM syndrome scores (Qi and Yin deficiency syndrome) | 14.51 ± 6.46 | 13.70 ± 6.57 | 1.12 (−1.23, 3.47) | 1.02 | 0.324 |
Note. ▲ indicates that symptom scores on the Likert scale of the individualized decoction were higher than those of individualized decoction removed of heat-clearing drugs. ∗indicates that the CAT score of individualized decoction was higher than that of the individualized decoction removed of heat-clearing drugs.