4.5 Article

Clinical Experience in Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease with Jiannao Yizhi Formula ((sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)) and Routine Western Medicine

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 212-218

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11655-019-2718-2

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Jiannao Yizhi Formula; Chinese medicine; clinical observasion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To investigate the long-term therapeutic effects of the Chinese medicine Jiannao Yizhi Formula ((sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), JYF) in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods Sixty mild-to-moderate AD participants were recruited and randomly allocated to the treatment (30 with JYF) and the control groups (30 with donepezil) for 6 months with the random numbers. The primary outcomes were scores of Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog) and Chinese Medicine Symptom Scale (CM-SS). The secondary outcomes were scores of Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Safety assessments were conducted at baseline and the 6th month of treatment. Serum levels of acetylcholine (Ach), amyloid-beta protein 42 (A beta(42)), and the microtubule-associated protein tau (Tau) were also determined by enzyme-liked immunosorbent assay. Results Fifty-one participants were included in the final analyses (JYF n=27; donepezil n=24). Compared with baseline, both JYF and donepezil increased the MoCA and MMSE scores and decreased the ADAS-Cog and CM-SS scores (PP < 0.01). Both drugs increased the serum levels of Ach and decreased the serum levels of A beta(42) and Tau (all P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in these variables between the two groups, which showed that JYF was not inferior to donepezil. No obviously significant changes were observed in the ADL. No severe adverse events were observed in both groups. Conclusion The effect and safety of JYF for the treatment of AD were not inferior to those of donepezil.

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

4.5
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