| Literature DB >> 35720028 |
Yi Shen1, Min Lu1, Qiuyan Xu1, Lu Liu1, Zhi Cheng1.
Abstract
Objective: To study the effect of Hanchuan Zupa granule combined with conventional western medicine in the treatment of children with bronchial asthma.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35720028 PMCID: PMC9200585 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2657994
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1Screening process for included patients.
Comparing the general information of the two groups of children ().
| Group | Males/females | Age (years) | Asthma course (years) | Acute course ( | Severity (mild/moderate) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | 28/21 | 9.15 ± 1.06 | 1.59 ± 0.33 | 12.32 ± 2.24 | 15/34 |
| Observation group ( | 30/19 | 9.20 ± 1.05 | 1.64 ± 0.35 | 12.20 ± 2.36 | 18/31 |
|
| >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
Comparison of IL-4, IL-17, NEU, and ECP levels in sputum before and after treatment between the two groups ().
| Group | IL-4 (ng/L) | IL-17 (ng/L) | NEU (%) | ECP (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before therapy | After treatment | Before therapy | After treatment | Before therapy | After treatment | Before therapy | After treatment | |
| Control group ( | 24.36 ± 4.53 | 15.48 ± 3.86∗ | 457.28 ± 36.85 | 315.54 ± 30.38∗ | 31.58 ± 5.26 | 28.16 ± 4.43∗ | 10.96 ± 2.71 | 2.83 ± 0.64∗ |
| Observation group ( | 25.01 ± 4.75 | 12.54 ± 2.85∗ | 465.72 ± 38.55 | 278.16 ± 31.39∗ | 32.03 ± 5.48 | 26.35 ± 4.18∗ | 11.25 ± 2.56 | 1.95 ± 0.49∗ |
|
| 0.693 | 4.289 | 1.108 | 5.990 | 0.415 | 2.080 | 0.545 | 7.642 |
|
| 0.245 | 0.000 | 0.135 | 0.000 | 0.340 | 0.020 | 0.294 | 0.000 |
Note: compared with before therapy in the same group, ∗P < 0.05.
Comparison of peripheral blood EOS, CXCR4, and serum LTB4 and SDF-1 levels after before therapy between the two groups ().
| Group | EOS (N/HP) | CXCR4 | LTB4 (ng/L) | SDF-1 (ng/L) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before therapy | After treatment | Before therapy | After treatment | Before therapy | After treatment | Before therapy | After treatment | |
| Control group ( | 36.15 ± 2.75 | 15.37 ± 1.86∗ | 22.86 ± 4.16 | 7.05 ± 1.12∗ | 175.26 ± 30.51 | 133.81 ± 22.56∗ | 589.27 ± 83.16 | 470.14 ± 68.49∗ |
| Observation group ( | 35.89 ± 3.54 | 11.06 ± 1.67∗ | 23.38 ± 3.85 | 5.79 ± 0.84∗ | 180.63 ± 35.42 | 118.75 ± 25.34∗ | 603.64 ± 79.48 | 415.74 ± 64.85∗ |
|
| 0.406 | 12.069 | 0.642 | 6.300 | 0.804 | 3.107 | 0.874 | 4.037 |
|
| 0.343 | 0.000 | 0.261 | 0.000 | 0.212 | 0.001 | 0.192 | 0.000 |
Note: compared with before therapy in the same group, ∗P < 0.05.
Comparison of cough symptom scores and TCM syndrome scores between the two groups after before therapy ().
| Group | Day cough | Night cough | TCM syndrome | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before therapy | After treatment | Before therapy | After treatment | Before therapy | After treatment | |
| Control group ( | 1.35 ± 0.18 | 0.65 ± 0.10 | 1.86 ± 0.27 | 0.97 ± 0.30 | 11.84 ± 2.18 | 6.58 ± 1.15 |
| Observation group ( | 1.32 ± 0.20 | 0.48 ± 0.11 | 1.81 ± 0.30 | 0.64 ± 0.22 | 12.28 ± 2.30 | 5.34 ± 1.27 |
|
| 0.780 | 8.005 | 0.867 | 6.209 | 0.972 | 5.066 |
|
| 0.219 | 0.000 | 0.194 | 0.000 | 0.167 | 0.000 |
Comparison of the efficacy of the two groups (n).
| Group | Number of cases | Clinical control | Markedly effective | Efficient | Invalid | Total effective rate% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 49 | 21 | 13 | 10 | 5 | 89.80 |
| Observation group | 49 | 10 | 15 | 11 | 13 | 73.47 |
|
| 4.356 | |||||
|
| 0.037 |