| Objective:To observe the effect of Bufei Gushen Decoction on the immune function of patients with primary nephrotic syndrome with deficiency of lung and kidney qi during the hormone maintenance phase,evaluate the effect of Bufei Gushen Decoction on improving the immunefunctionofthebody,andprovideacertaintheoreticalbasis for clinical.Methods:This study included a total of patients with primary nephrotic syndrome who met the inclusion criteria in the inpatient and outpatient departments of the Department of Nephrology,the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine,from April 1,2020 to January 31,2021.Lung and Kidney Qi Deficiency Syndrome in the Hormone Maintenance Phase of Guangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine 60 patients were randomly divided into a control group of 30 cases and a treatment group of 30 cases.Both groups were given routine basic treatment(including high-quality low-protein diet,blood pressure control,diuresis andswelling,lipid-lowering,etc.).Yupingfenggranuleswereaddedto the basic treatment,and the treatment group was treated with Bufei Gushen Decoction in addition to the conventional basic treatment.The course of treatment was 3 months.Observe the immune function-related indicators(CD4~+,CD8~+,CD4~+/CD8~+,Ig G,Ig M),serum albumin(ALB),24-hour urine protein(24HUPQ),blood creatinine(Scr)and TCM syndrome scores of the two groups of patients before and after treatment The change.Results:(1)Effects on cellular immunity:(1)Comparison of CD4~+levels:There was no statistically significant difference in CD4~+between the twogroupsbeforetreatment(P>0.05).Incomparisonbetweenthetwo groups,the average CD4~+beforetreatmentinthe treatment group was(30.60±4.51)%,and the average CD4~+after treatment was(42.32±4.46)%,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);the average CD4~+before treatment in the control group was(31.54±3.37)%,and the average CD4~+after treatment was(39.87±2.70)%,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);Comparing the groups after treatment,the CD4~+level of the treatment group increased more significantly than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).(2)Comparison of CD8~+levels:There was no statistically significant difference in CD8~+levels between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05).Compared within the groups,the average CD8~+before treatment in the treatment groupwas(34.44±5.53)%,andtheaverage CD8~+aftertreatmentwas(25.49±2.38)%.The difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);the average CD8~+of the control group before treatment was(32.82±2.60)%,and the average CD8~+after treatment was(27.16±1.65)%,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);comparison between groups after treatment,The CD8~+level of the treatment group was lower than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).(3)Comparison of CD4~+/CD8~+ratio:The difference between the two groups of CD4~+/CD8~+before treatment was not statistically significant(P>0.05).Compared within the group,the average value of CD4~+/CD8~+before treatment in the treatment group was(0.92±0.17),and the average value of CD4~+/CD8~+after treatment was(1.69±0.25),the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);the average CD4~+/CD8~+before treatment in the control group was(0.96±0.09),and the average CD4~+/CD8~+after treatment was(1.47±0.09),the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);Comparison between groups after treatment,the ratio of CD4~+/CD8~+in the treatment group increased more significantly than the ratio of CD4~+/CD8~+in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).(4)The ratios of CD4~+and CD4~+/CD8~+were significantly increased after treatment in the two groups,and the CD8~+level was significantly reduced.The treatment group was better than the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).(2)Influence on humoral immune indexes:(1)Comparison of Ig G level:There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of Ig G before treatment(P>0.05).Compared within the group,the average Ig G before treatment in the treatment group was(5.78±0.82)g/L,and the Ig G after treatment.The average value was(10.63±1.19)g/L,and the difference is statistically significant(P<0.05);the average Ig G before treatment in the control group was(6.12±0.83)g/L,and the average Ig G after treatment was(9.98±1.34)g/L.The difference is Statistical significance(P<0.05);after treatment,the Ig G level of the treatment group increased more significantlythanthatofthecontrolgroup,butthedifferencewasno statistically significant(P>0.05).(2)Ig M level comparison:There was no statistically significant difference in Ig M levels between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05).In comparison between the two groups,the average Ig M before treatment in the treatment group was(1.66±0.13)g/L,and the average Ig M after treatment was(1.20±0.19)g/L,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);the average Ig M before treatment in the control group was(1.65±0.13)g/L,and the average Ig M after treatment was(1.31±0.15)g/L,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);After treatment,the Ig M level of the treatment group was significantly lower than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).(3)Effect on 24-hour urine protein quantification:There was no statistically significant difference in the 24-hour urine protein quantitative comparison between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05).Compared within the group,the average value of 24-hour urine protein quantification in the treatment group was(516.52±328.85)mg before treatment,The 24-hour urine protein quantitative average of(262.78±167.81)mg after treatment,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);the 24-hour urine protein quantitative average of the control group before treatment was(648.25±263.04)mg,the 24-hour urine protein quantitative after treatment The average value was(345.92±152.55)mg,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);after treatment,the24-hour urine protein quantitative level of the treatment group was lower than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).(4)Effect on serum albumin:There was no statistically significant difference in serum albumin between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05).In comparison between the two groups,the average value of serum albumin before treatment was(38.96±2.97)g/L,and the serum albumin after treatment The average value of albumin was(46.09±2.24g/L),and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);the average value of serum albumin before treatment in the control group was(37.69±3.79)g/L,and the average value of serum albumin after treatment was(43.37±2.96)g/L,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);after treatment,the serum albumin level of the treatment group increased more significantly than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).(5)Effect on creatinine:There was no statistically significant difference in creatinine before treatment between the two groups(P>0.05).In comparison between the two groups,the average creatinine before treatment was(79.67±16.95)umol/L,and the average creatinine after treatment was(70.97±13.12)umol/L,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);the average creatinine of the control group before treatment was(77.27±30.00)umol/L,and the average creatinine after treatment was(73.10±30.00)umol/L,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);After treatment,the creatinine of the treatment group decreased more significantly than that of the control group,but the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).(6)Influence on TCM syndrome score:The difference between the two groups before treatment was not statistically significant(P>0.05),and the two groups were comparable.In comparison within the group,the average value of the total score before treatment in the treatment group was(22.97±5.09),and the average value of the total score after treatment was(12.58±2.99),the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);the average value of the total score before treatment in the control group was(20.52±6.96),After treatment,the average total score was(16.37±3.71),and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);after treatment,the TCM syndrome scoreof the treatment groupwassignificantly lower than thatof the controlgroup,andthedifferencewasstatisticallysignificant(P<0.05).(7)Impact on clinical efficacy:After 3 months of treatment,the total effective rate of the treatment group was 93.33%,and the total effectiverateofthecontrolgroupwas80%.Thedifferenceinclinical efficacy between the two groups of patients was statistically significant(P<0.05),it can be considered that the treatment effect of the two groups of patients after treatment is better than that of the control group.Conclusions:(1)Bufei Gushen Decoction can improve the immune function of patients with primary nephrotic syndrome with lung and kidney qi deficiency in the hormone maintenance stage.(2)Bufei Gushen Decoction can improve creatinine,24-hour urine protein levels and serum albumin levels in patients with primary nephrotic syndrome with lung and kidney qi deficiency.(3)Bufei Gushen Decoction can improve the TCM syndrome scores of patients with primary nephrotic syndrome with deficiency of lung and kidney qi as a whole,improve their clinical symptoms,and improve clinicalefficacy. |
PDF Full Text Request