4.6 Article

Adjunctive Treatment with Rhodiola Crenulata in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease - A Randomized Placebo Controlled Double Blind Clinical Trial

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128142

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan [CSH-2012-C-23]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a low grade systemic inflammatory disease characterized by dyspnea and exercise intolerance even under standard therapy. Rhodiola crenulata (RC) has been shown to exert anti-inflammatory effects and to enhance exercise endurance, thereby having the potential to treat COPD. In this 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 57 patients with stable moderate-to-severe COPD aged 70 +/- 8.8 years were given RC (250 mg twice/day) (n=38) or a placebo (250 mg twice/day) (n=19) in addition to their standard regimen. There were no significant differences in anthropometrics, quality of life, lung function, six-minute walk and incremental exercise tests between the two groups at enrollment. Over the 12 weeks, RC was well tolerated, significantly reduced triceps skin thickness (Delta=-1 mm, p = .04), change of FEV1 (4.5%, p = .03), and improved workload (Delta=10%, p = .01); although there were no significant differences in these factors between the two groups. However, there were significant between-group differences in tidal volume and ventilation-CO2-output ratio at peak exercise (both p = .05), which were significantly related to peak work rate (both p<.0001). RC tended to protect against acute exacerbation of COPD (p = .1) but not other measurements. RC did not improve the six-minute walk test distance but significantly improved tidal breathing and ventilation efficiency, most likely through improvements in work rate. Further studies with a larger patient population are needed in order to confirm these findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据