Background. To investigate the clinical effects of Chinese medicine decoction combined with glucocorticoid in treating children with primary nephrotic syndrome. Methods. A total of 70 children with pediatric nephritis nephrotic syndrome treated at Weifang People’s Hospital from January 2019 to December 2019 were randomly allocated to the therapy group and the control group, each with 35 cases. The control group was treated with conventional Western medicine, and the therapy group received Western medicine and Chinese medicine. After 12 weeks of treatment, the therapeutic effect of the two groups was compared. Results. After receiving the treatment, the levels of urine protein (UPro), triglyceride, and cholesterol were significantly decreased in the two groups ( p < 0.05 ), and these levels in the therapy group were much lower than those of the control group ( p < 0.05 ). However, the level of albumin (ALB) was predominantly increased in the two groups after treatment ( p < 0.05 ), and this level in the therapy group was much higher than that of the control group ( p < 0.05 ). Moreover, the immune indicators, coagulation function, and recurrence rate were noticeably improved after treatment ( p < 0.05 ), and the therapy group was better than the control group ( p < 0.05 ). Furthermore, the comparison of renal function indexes, liver function indexes, and blood routine between the two groups showed no statistical significance in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups ( p > 0.05 ). Conclusions. For the treatment of refractory nephrotic syndrome in children, based on conventional shock therapy, the addition of traditional Chinese medicine (Liuwei Dihuang pill decoction) remedy can significantly improve the disease symptoms in children and improve the efficacy, and the incidence of adverse reactions is low.
Objective: To evaluate impact of age, gender, race and BMI on NSAID efficacy in OA. Methods: Pfizer Clinical Trials Registry was searched for studies meeting the following criteria: randomized parallel-group design; Ն1 treatment group receiving celecoxib Ն200 mg daily; Ն1 placebo, NSAID, or rofecoxib comparator group; planned duration of Ն6 weeks; study completed and report finalized by October 31, 2004; 1 primary OA efficacy end point and pain visual analog scale (VAS) of 100 mm collected. In analyzing efficacy, we used the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which proposes that patients are unable to detect a small difference in efficacy. For MCID a change of Ն10 mm on the VAS from baseline to last observation was used to define responders. Percent responders and differences in responder rates were calculated for placebo and NSAIDs combined for age, gender, BMI, and race. For each treatment, responder rates were compared statistically for categorical data (gender and race) using a test of incidence rates within each treatment category, and CMH for overall association. For continuous variables (BMI and age), inference was calculated on the slope of the regression of VAS change on predictor variables. No adjustments in the nominal alpha level were made for the multiple analyses. Results: Fifteen studies were included: 21,798 OA patients received celecoxib (61%), diclofenac (19%), naproxen (10%), ibuprofen (1%), rofecoxib (2%), or placebo (8%). The majority of patients were female (73%) and Caucasian (78%). Median (range) for age and BMI were: 63 years (18 -96) and 29 (11-149), respectively. NSAID response was influenced significantly by age (P ϭ 0.0099), BMI (P ϭ 0.0002), gender and race (P Յ 0.0001); placebo response was influenced by age (P ϭ 0.0002) and race (P Յ 0.0001). Differential response between NSAIDs and placebo was significantly influenced by all variables (P Յ 0.0001). Conclusions: Age, gender, BMI, and race are important predictors of NSAID response, while only age and race influence placebo response. Predictors of the highest benefits of pain reduction with NSAIDs versus placebo are: older age, female sex, being overweight, and Caucasian race.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.