Table 5.
CGI-GI and CGI-EI scales at 24w
| CGI scale | Combinationab | CBMNCa | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGI-GI |
Not assessed |
0(0.00%) |
0(0.00%) |
1(7.69%) |
| N (%) |
Very much improved |
3(33.33%) |
1(7.14%) |
0(0.00%) |
| Much improved |
5(55.56%) |
6(42.86%) |
1(7.69%) |
|
| Minimally improved |
1(11.11%) |
2(14.29%) |
11(84.62%) |
|
| No change |
0(0.00%) |
5(35.71%) |
1(7.69%) |
|
| Minimally worse |
0(0.00%) |
0(0.00%) |
0(0.00%) |
|
| Much worse |
0(0.00%) |
0(0.00%) |
0(0.00%) |
|
| Very much worse |
0(0.00%) |
0(0.00%) |
0(0.00%) |
|
| CGI-EI |
Unchanged or worse |
0(0.00%) |
5(35.71%) |
1(7.69%) |
| N (%) |
Minimal |
1(11.11%) |
2(14.29%) |
11(84.62%) |
| Moderate |
6(66.67%) |
7(50.00%) |
1(7.69%) |
|
| Marked |
2(22.22%) |
0(0.00%) |
0(0.00%) |
|
| Total(missed) | 9(0) | 14(0) | 13(1) |
Note: aThe percent of “Very much improved” and “Much improved” in the CGI-GI scale and the percent of “Marked” and “Moderate” effects in the CGI-EI scale were significantly higher in the Combination and CBMNC groups when compared with the Control group at 24w (p < 0.05). bThe percent of “Very much improved” and “Much improved” in the CGI-GI scale and the percent of “Marked” and “Moderate” effects in the CGI-EI scale were significantly higher in the Combination group when compared with the CBMNC group at 24w (p < 0.05).