| Objective: This topic is guided by traditional Chinese medicine theory,combined with modern medicine,through the application of traditional Chinese medicine prescription Baihu-Guizhi decoction(BHGZD)plus oral administration to treat acute gouty arthritis(GA)of ankle joint,and Etocoxib was taken orally in comparison to observe and compare its therapeutic effects,explore the partial mechanism of Baihu plus Guizhi Decoction in the treatment of acute gouty arthritis of the ankle,and conduct clinical efficacy and safety evaluation and analysis.Methods: This study collected 60 patients with acute gouty arthritis of the ankle(damp-heat accumulation type)who were in the outpatient clinic of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine from March 2020 to January 2021.They were randomly divided into groups A(treatment group)and group B(control group),with 30 patients in each group(n=30).Both groups A and B were given basic treatments such as dietary guidance,and group A(treatment group)was given oral treatment with Baihu plus Guizhi Decoction plus traditional Chinese medicine on the basis of basic treatment.Group B(control group)was given oral etoricoxib on the basis of basic treatment;the changes of pain VAS score,pain relief time,joint swelling score and TCM syndrome score were observed before and 7days after treatment,that is,after 1 course of treatment.And monitor the patient’s white blood cell(WBC),C-reactive protein(CRP),blood uric acid(BUA),red blood cell sedimentation rate(ESR)changes and safety indicators.And use SPSS 21.0 statistical software for statistical analysis of data.Results: 1.All 60 patients with acute gouty arthritis of the ankle have completed the corresponding treatment.Comparison of gender,age,disease location,disease course,pain VAS score before treatment,joint swelling score,TCM syndrome score,white blood cell,C-reactive protein,blood uric acid,erythrocyte sedimentation rate,etc.between the two groups of patients participating in the test,P> 0.05,the difference was not statistically significant.2.Comparison of pain VAS score,joint swelling score,TCM syndrome score and WBC,CRP,ESR and other treatments before and after treatment in the two groups: P<0.05,the difference was statistically significant.3.Comparison of joint swelling score,TCM syndrome score and WBC,CRP,ESR treatment between the two groups of patients: P<0.05,the difference is statistically significant.The treatment group had better effect than the control group.4.The comparison of the time to relieve the pain of the two groups of patients showed that P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant.Moreover,the pain relief time of the treatment group was longer than that of the control group,and the pain relief treatment effect of the control group was better than that of the treatment group.5.There was no statistically significant difference in pain VAS scores between the two groups after treatment(P>0.05).The comparison of the BUA index of patients before and after treatment within and between groups showed that the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).That is to say,neither the treatment group nor the control group had the effect of reducing blood uric acid.6.The clinical efficacy evaluation and TCM syndrome evaluation of the two groups of patients,after the rank sum test,P<0.05,the difference is statistically significant.Conclusion(s): 1.Baihu plus Guizhi Decoction has better curative effect than relying on coxib in improving patients’ symptoms,signs,joint swelling scores,and reducing patients’ WBC,CRP,ESR and other laboratory indicators.It can also help patients with pain symptoms,improve joint mobility,and have a definite effect on the treatment of ankle gouty arthritis(damp-heat accumulation syndrome).2.In terms of pain relief,Baihu Jiaguizhi Decoction has the same effect as etoricoxib,but the effective time of analgesic effect is shorter than traditional Chinese medicine treatment group.3.Baihu Jiaguizhi Decoction has no obvious effect on lowering blood uric acid.4.There were no adverse events in the two groups of patients,and the treatment plan was safe. |