The. Tongbi On The 2nd Treatment Of Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Research

OBJECTIVETo observe the therapeutic effect and adverse reaction of TongBi 2 in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. To provide scientific basis for TongBi 2's application in clinic.METHODSAll 80 patients from the HuBei Provincial TCM Hospital conforming to the diagnostic standard, were randomly divided into two groups: therapeutic group of TongBi 2 (GroupA, n=40) and comparative group of Loxoprofen Sodium Tablets(GroupB, n=40), with MTX for both groups as basic treatment. After 4 weeks therapy, examining patients' blood routine, urine routine, stool routine, liver function, kidney function, electrocardiogram, blood sink ratio(ESR), rheumatoid factor and C-reactive protein(CRP), etc. Observing the main clinical symptoms and recording the side effects. Evaluating the result, and comparing the curative effect and safety of the two medicines.RESULT1 The total effective rate of GroupA was 87.5% and that of GroupB was 82.5%. There was no significant difference between the two groups, which indicate that the total effect of the two was very close.2 From week one to week four, the total effective rates of improving the TCM symptom were 62.5%, 80.0%, 92.5%, 95.0% separately in GroupA and were 80.0%, 82.5%, 82.5%, 85.0% separately in GroupB, with no significant difference. That's to say the total effective rate of improving the TCM symptom of the two groups was close as well.3 The accumulative mark of TCM symptom distinctly decreased after treatment for both groups, with significant change from week two. Comparing the two groups, there were no difference statistically in week 1, 2, 3, but in week 4 significant difference came out, the effect of GroupA was better than GroupB. After 4 weeks' therapy, the difference of the accumulative mark of TCM between the two groups was different statistically, which showed that the effect of improving TCM symptom in GroupA was better than that in GroupB.4 After 4 weeks' treatment, the main clinical symptoms and physical signs were improved than before. Specially the count of joint tenderness, average grasp force of both hands and mark of VAS improved significantly in statistic in GroupA, much better than that in GroupB. However, improvement of the count of swollen joint and morning stiff was no difference comparatively between both groups in statistic, the curative effect of which was very close.5 The result of indexes in laboratory test was improved after 4 weeks for both groups. The changes of ESR and CRP were different significantly between the 2 groups, but not for RF.