1.上海中医药大学 附属岳阳中西医结合医院,上海 200437
2.上海中医药大学,上海 201203
3.同济大学 附属同济医院,上海 200092
4.上海市虹口区四川北路街道社区卫生服务中心,上海 200080
5.上海中医药大学 附属光华医院,上海 200052
6.上海市中医药研究院 中西医结合关节炎研究所,上海 200052
王晓,在读博士,从事中西医结合防治消化系统疾病研究,E-mail:suyi111@126.com
李黎,博士,研究员,从事中医脾胃病临床与基础研究,E-mail: li_li@shutcm.edu.cn
收稿:2024-01-30,
网络出版:2024-04-09,
纸质出版:2024-12-20
移动端阅览
王晓,王晓素,周秉舵等.柴胡疏肝散合旋覆代赭汤治疗肝胃不和型Barrett食管的临床观察[J].中国实验方剂学杂志,2024,30(24):10-17.
WANG Xiao,WANG Xiaosu,ZHOU Bingduo,et al.Clinical Observation on Chaihu Shugansan Combined with Xuanfu Daizhetang in Treating Barrett's Esophagus with Liver-stomach Disharmony[J].Chinese Journal of Experimental Traditional Medical Formulae,2024,30(24):10-17.
王晓,王晓素,周秉舵等.柴胡疏肝散合旋覆代赭汤治疗肝胃不和型Barrett食管的临床观察[J].中国实验方剂学杂志,2024,30(24):10-17. DOI: 10.13422/j.cnki.syfjx.20241122.
WANG Xiao,WANG Xiaosu,ZHOU Bingduo,et al.Clinical Observation on Chaihu Shugansan Combined with Xuanfu Daizhetang in Treating Barrett's Esophagus with Liver-stomach Disharmony[J].Chinese Journal of Experimental Traditional Medical Formulae,2024,30(24):10-17. DOI: 10.13422/j.cnki.syfjx.20241122.
目的
2
观察柴胡疏肝散合旋覆代赭汤治疗肝胃不和型Barrett食管(BE)的临床疗效及安全性。
方法
2
通过随机、平行、对照、双盲试验,以符合纳入标准的BE患者为研究对象,随机分为观察组和对照组,每组各34人,观察组采用柴胡疏肝散合旋覆代赭汤联合奥美拉唑胶囊治疗,对照组采用柴胡疏肝散合旋覆代赭汤模拟剂联合奥美拉唑胶囊,治疗周期为12周,以中医证候积分、临床疗效、BE病变面积、BE病理组织学改变、胆汁酸谱结果为疗效指标,共同评价两组临床疗效及安全性。
结果
2
最终完成试验并纳入统计者62例,观察组32例,对照组30例,两组患者基线人口学资料和疾病特征差异无统计学意义,具有可比性。观察组临床总有效率(93.7%,30/32)优于对照组(60.0%,18/30)(
χ
2
=24.766,
P
<
0.05);治疗后,观察组病变组织病理学疗效总有效率(62.5%,20/32)优于对照组(23.3%,7/30)(
χ
2
=10.270,
P
<
0.05);观察组食管病变面积改变疗效总有效率(21.9%,7/32)优于对照组(6.7%,2/30),但差异无统计学意义,即两组方案在缩减BE病灶面积方面优势不明显;治疗后与对照组比较,观察组能有效调节胆汁酸谱代谢水平,为进一步探讨本方治疗BE的作用机制指明了方向;治疗期间两组患者安全指标均未出现具有临床意义的异常改变。
结论
2
柴胡疏肝散合旋覆代赭汤对于肝胃不和型BE患者中医临床证候、病理组织学、胆汁酸谱的改善优于对照组,在改善病灶面积方面存在一定潜力,该方用于肝胃不和型BE患者的临床治疗安全有效,值得临床深入研究及推广应用。
Objective
2
To observe the clinical efficacy and safety of Chaihu Shugansan combined with Xuanfu Daizhetang (CHSG-XFDZ) in the management of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with liver-stomach disharmony.
Method
2
A randomized, parallel, controlled, double-blind clinical trial was conducted. BE patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized into an observation group and a control group, with 34 patients in each group. The observation group was treated with CHSG-XFDZ combined with omeprazole capsules, and the control group was treated with CHSG-XFDZ mimetic combined with omeprazole capsules. Both groups were treated for 12 weeks. The traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) symptom scores, response rate, BE lesion area, BE pathological changes, and bile acid profile were taken as the indicators to jointly evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of the two groups.
Result
2
A total of 62 patients who completed the trial were included for statistical analysis, including 32 in the observation group and 30 in the control group. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline demographics or disease characteristics between two groups, which suggested that the two groups were comparable. The total response rate in the observation group was 93.7% (30/32), which was higher than that (60.0%, 18/30) in the control group (
χ
2
=24.766,
P
<
0.05). After treatment, the response rate regarding the pathological changes in the observation group was 62.5% (20/32), which was higher than that (23.3%, 7/30) in the control group (
χ
2
=10.270,
P
<
0.05). The response rate regarding the BE lesion area change in the observation group was 21.9% (7/32), which had no statistically significant difference from that (6.7%, 2/30) in the control group, which indicated that the advantages of the two regimens were not obvious in terms of reducing the area of BE lesions. Compared with the control group after treatment, the observation group regulated the bile acid profile, which pointed out the direction for further exploring the mechanism of CHSG-XFDZ in treating BE. Neither group showcased adverse reactions with clinical significance during the treatment period.
Conclusion
2
CHSG-XFDZ outperformed the control group in terms of alleviating TCM symptoms, ameliorating pathological changes, and improving the bile acid profile in the BE patients with liver-stomach disharmony. It demonstrates certain potential in reducing the lesion area. This formula is safe and effective in treating BE patients with liver-stomach disharmony and deserves further clinical research and widespread application.
国家消化系统疾病临床医学研究中心 , 中华医学会消化内镜学分会 , 中国医师协会消化医师分会 . 中国巴雷特食管及其早期腺癌筛查与诊治共识(2017万宁) [J]. 中国实用内科杂志 , 2017 , 37 ( 9 ): 798 - 809 .
THRIFT A P . Global burden and epidemiology of Barrett oesophagus and oesophageal cancer [J]. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol , 2021 , 18 ( 6 ): 432 - 443 .
YUAN L , HIDER P , WALSH M , et al . Oesophagectomy at a New Zealand regional centre: Where to now? [J]. ANZ J Surg , 2018 , 88 ( 12 ): 1269 - 1273 .
KATZKA D A , KAHRILAS P J . Advances in the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease [J]. BMJ , 2020 , 371 : m3786 .
WOLFSON P , HO K , WILSON A , et al . Endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia: A final 10-year report from the UK national HALO radiofrequency ablation registry [J]. Gastrointest Endosc , 2022 , 96 ( 2 ): 223 - 233 .
URBANSKA A M , PONNAZHAGAN S , MOZAFARI M. Pathology , chemoprevention , and preclinical models for target validation in barrett esophagus [J]. Cancer Res , 2018 , 78 ( 14 ): 3747 - 3754 .
杨静 , 毛宇湘 , 许玉娜 , 等 . 和胃1号方联合埃索美拉唑治疗Barrett食管的疗效及对IL-2、TNF- α 和ET水平影响 [J]. 中华中医药学刊 , 2021 , 39 ( 4 ): 188 - 191 .
王俊 , 孙懿 , 黄雅慧 , 等 . 清肝健脾方治疗Barrett食管临床疗效及其对Cdx2和p38MAPK的表达影响 [J]. 中华中医药学刊 , 2016 , 34 ( 2 ): 496 - 498, 后插15.
王萍 , 王凤云 , 蓝宇 , 等 . 中医药临床优势病种探讨——胃食管反流病 [J]. 中国实验方剂学杂志 , 2023 , 29 ( 12 ): 199 - 208 .
杨元明 , 梁丹红 , 梁民联 , 等 . 难治性胃食管反流病的原因和中医药诊治策略 [J]. 世界中医药 , 2024 , 19 ( 14 ): 2171 - 2174,2179 .
贾越博 , 刘林 , 白光 , 等 . 基于数据挖掘探讨胃食管反流病中医证型与用药规律分析 [J]. 世界中医药 , 2022 , 17 ( 15 ): 2121 - 2126,2134 .
朱梅 , 崔金刚 , 徐亭亭 , 等 . 柴胡疏肝散合旋覆代赭汤防治十二指肠内容物反流致食管癌变的效应研究 [J]. 时珍国医国药 , 2021 , 32 ( 4 ): 822 - 825 .
李军祥 , 陈誩 , 李岩 . 胃食管反流病中西医结合诊疗共识意见(2017年) [J]. 中国中西医结合消化杂志 , 2018 , 26 ( 3 ): 221 - 226 .
张月晓 , 陈健 . 奥美拉唑配合内镜下氩离子凝固术治疗Barrett食管疗效及对患者p53蛋白表达的影响 [J]. 中国中西医结合消化杂志 , 2019 , 27 ( 8 ): 587 - 591 .
郑筱萸 . 中药新药临床研究指导原则(试行) [M]. 北京 : 中国医药科技出版社 , 2002 : 30-35,124-129 .
国家卫生健康委员会 . 食管癌诊疗规范(2018年版) [J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志:电子版 , 2019 , 9 ( 4 ): 158 - 192 .
PANDA A , SHIN M R , CHENG C , et al . Barrett's Epithelium to esophageal adenocarcinoma: Is there a "point of no return"? [J]. Front Genet , 2021 , 12 : 706706 .
PETERS F T , GANESH S , KUIPERS E J , et al . Endoscopic regression of Barrett's oesophagus during omeprazole treatment; A randomised double blind study [J]. Gut , 1999 , 45 ( 4 ): 489 - 494 .
SAMPLINER R E . Reduction of acid exposure and regression of Barrett's esophagus [J]. Dig Dis , 2000 , 18 ( 4 ): 203 - 207 .
PETERS F T , GANESH S , KUIPERS E J , et al . Effect of elimination of acid reflux on epithelial cell proliferative activity of Barrett esophagus [J]. Scand J Gastroenterol , 2000 , 35 ( 12 ): 1238 - 1244 .
SOUZA R F , KRISHNAN K , SPECHLER S J . Acid, bile, and CDX: The ABCs of making Barrett's metaplasia [J]. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol , 2008 , 295 ( 2 ): G211 - G218 .
BURKE Z D , TOSH D . Barrett's metaplasia as a paradigm for understanding the development of cancer [J]. Curr Opin Genet Dev , 2012 , 22 ( 5 ): 494 - 499 .
KAZUMORI H , ISHIHARA S , RUMI M A , et al . Bile acids directly augment caudal related homeobox gene Cdx2 expression in oesophageal keratinocytes in Barrett's epithelium [J]. Gut , 2006 , 55 ( 1 ): 16 - 25 .
KAUER W K , STEIN H J . Bile reflux in the constellation of gastroesophageal reflux disease [J]. Thorac Surg Clin , 2005 , 15 ( 3 ): 335 - 340 .
CRONIN J , WILLIAMS L , MCADAM E , et al . The role of secondary bile acids in neoplastic development in the oesophagus [J]. Biochem Soc Trans , 2010 , 38 ( 2 ): 337 - 342 .
彭诗涛 , 刘振丽 , 宋志前 , 等 . 基于胆汁酸调控“肠-肝”对话探讨乳香醋炙对治疗溃疡性结肠炎的增效作用机制 [J]. 中国实验方剂学杂志 , 2023 , 29 ( 21 ): 59 - 68 .
0
浏览量
95
下载量
0
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621
