Clinical Trial On Treatmrnt Of Parkinson’s Disease With Yin Deficiency Of Liver And Kidney By Paning

Objectives:To explore effects of TCM treatment of Parkinson’s diease and motor symptoms,in order to provide objective basis for exploring the advantages of TCM treatment of Parkinson’s diease.Methods:1. Apply UPDRS、Hoehn & Yahr、MMSE、HAMD、PDSS、MoCA、TCM Symdroms integral assessment rating、TCM Symdroms of deficiency of liver and kidney of Parkinson’s diease rating criteria to determine, analysis of the clinical manifestations and characteristic of PD.2.60 patients in PD( Yin deficiency of liver and kidney)with constipation were randomly divided into two groups including the treatment group(n=30) and the control group(n=30). The two groups were given basic treatment, while the treatment group to Pa Nin herbs, to assesse the clinical efficacy. The two groups were compared by clinical assessment and clinical effects: UPDRS、Hoehn & Yahr、MMSE、HAMD、PDSS、Mo CA、TCM Symdroms integral assessment rating、TCM Symdroms of deficiency of liver and kidney of Parkinson’s diease rating criteria.The therapy lasted for 28 days.There are evaluations after 14 days’ treatment and at the end of the treatment.At the same time,adverse reactions were observed during the treatment.Results:1.The UPDRS scale evaluation of curative effect: After 28 days’ treatment,compared with UPDRS total scores in the same group, it had statistical significance(P< 0.05) in control group,while the treatment group had significant statistical significance(P< 0.01). After 28 days’ treatment,compared with UPDRS I scores in the same group,it had statistical significance(P< 0.05) in the two groups.Compared with UPDRSII scores in the same groups,the treatment group had significant statistical significance(P<0.01). Compared with UPDRS II scores between two groups,it had significant statistical significance(P<0.01). After 28 days’ treatment, compared with UPDRS III scores in the same group,the treatment group had significant statistical significance(P< 0.01). Compared with UPDRS III scores between two groups,it had significant statistical significance(P< 0.01).2. The Hoehn & Yahr scale evaluation of curative effect: Treatment for 28 days: Compared with in the same group after 14 days’ treatment, the scores in two groups after 28 days’ treatment decreased,but there was no statistical significance(P>0.05).Compared with between two groups after treatment, there were statistical significance(P< 0.05) in 14 days and 28 days’ treatment.3. The HAMD scale evaluation of curative effect: Treatment for 28 days: Compared with in the same group after 14 days’ treatment, the scores in two groups both decreased,it had significant statistical significance(P< 0.01) in treatment group; Compared with between two groups after treatment, there were statistical significance(P< 0.05) in 14 days and 28 days’ treatment.4. The MMSE scale evaluation of curative effect: Treatment for 28 days: Compared with in the same group after 14 days’ treatment, the scores in two groups both increased,but there were no statistical significance(P>0.05) in the two groups; Compared with between two groups after treatment, there were statistical significance(P< 0.05) in 28 days’ treatment.5. The Mo CA scale evaluation of curative effect: Treatment for 28 days: Compared with in the same group after 14 days’ treatment, the scores in two groups both increased, it had significant statistical significance(P< 0.01) in treatment group while the control groups hadn’t; Compared with between two groups after treatment, there were no statistical significance(P> 0.05) in 14 days while after 28 days’ treatment,it had significant statistical significance(P< 0.01).6. The PDSS scale evaluation of curative effect: Treatment for 28 days:Compared within the same group after 14 days’ treatment, the scores in two groups both increased, the treatment group had significant statistical significance(P< 0.01). Compared with between two groups after treatment, there were significant statistical significance(P< 0.01) in 14 days while after 28 days’ treatment.7. The comparison of the TCM Symdroms of deficiency of liver and kidney of Parkinson’s diease rating criteria: Treatment for 28 days: the scores in the treatment group decreased,it had significant statistical significance(P< 0.01). The scores in the control group increased a little, there was no statistical significance(P>0.05). Compared with between two groups after treatment, there were significant statistical significance(P< 0.01) in 14 days and 28 days’ treatment.8. The comparison of the clinical curative effects of TCM syndrome: the total efficiency in thetreatment group is 93.3% and that in the control group is 86.7%. By the analysis of Ridit(P<0.05), it was statistically significant.Conclusion:1. Pa Ning can improve the motor symptoms of patients in Parkinson’s diease andenhance the patient’s quality of life.The curative effect is positive.But there is nosignificant improvement in the Hoehn & Yahr scale evaluation, In the short-termcourse of Parkinson’s disease it has not been able to play a reversal of diseaseclassification change.2. The study found that Panin can improve Parkinson’s disease non-motor symptoms better. Compared with western medicine basic treatment, the patient’s mood, cognitive function and sleep disorders have a significant effect, and with the course of the extension, the effect is more obvious improvement.3. The comparison of the TCM Symdroms of deficiency of liver and kidney of Parkinson’s diease rating criteria is used to evaluate the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine, not only conforms to Chinese medical thinking, and easy clinical operation. The study found Pa Nin can improve dizziness, sleep disorder, forgetfulness,oropharyngeal dry, night sweats zygomatic red, five upset hot, stool incomprehensible and other TCM clinical symptoms in Parkinson’s patients with liver-kidney deficiency.