CAJ | 학술논문

目的：探讨麻杏石甘汤加味对中医辨证为风热型荨麻疹的临床疗效。方法：将符合纳入标准的68名患者，按随机数字表随机分为两组，治疗组36例，对照组32例。治疗组选用中药麻杏石甘汤加味治疗，每日2次，饭后服用，每剂药服3天，连服4周。对照组选用盐酸西替利嗪滴剂，每次1ml，每日睡前1次，连服4周为1疗程。疗效标准参考UAS（荨麻疹活动性评分），对患者皮肤瘙痒感，风团数量，风团大小等症状体征在治疗前后分别进行评分。结果：两组患者症状、体征分级量化评分治疗后均低于治疗前，比较结果 P＜0.01，有统计学意义；两组患者治疗后疗效总有效率经ⅹ2检验比较，P＜0.05，差异具有统计学意义；治疗组复发率为11.1%；对照组复发率为34.4%。结论：两种方法治疗慢性荨麻疹均有效，且治疗组疗效优于对照组，治疗组复发率低于对照组。
목적：탐토마행석감탕가미대중의변증위풍열형담마진적림상료효。방법：장부합납입표준적68명환자，안수궤수자표수궤분위량조，치료조36례，대조조32례。치료조선용중약마행석감탕가미치료，매일2차，반후복용，매제약복3천，련복4주。대조조선용염산서체리진적제，매차1ml，매일수전1차，련복4주위1료정。료효표준삼고UAS（담마진활동성평분），대환자피부소양감，풍단수량，풍단대소등증상체정재치료전후분별진행평분。결과：량조환자증상、체정분급양화평분치료후균저우치료전，비교결과 P＜0.01，유통계학의의；량조환자치료후료효총유효솔경ⅹ2검험비교，P＜0.05，차이구유통계학의의；치료조복발솔위11.1%；대조조복발솔위34.4%。결론：량충방법치료만성담마진균유효，차치료조료효우우대조조，치료조복발솔저우대조조。
Objective:To explore and discuss the clinical curative efficacy of modified Ephedra, Bitter Apricot Seed, Gypsum and Licorice Decoction on urticaria of wind-heat type. Methods:68 patients who met the standards were randomized into two groups, 36 in the treatment group and 32 in the control group. Patients in the treatment group were treated with modified Ephedra, Bitter Apricot Seed, Gypsum and Licorice Decoction. 2 times a day, after meals,1 dose for 3 days, 4 doses taken without stop. Patients in the control group were treated with Cetirizine Hydrochloride Drops. 1ml a time, 1 time a day, before sleep, 4 weeks as a course. Before and after the treatment, symptoms and signs such as itch degree, numbers and sizes of urticaria were evaluated. The UAS was taken as the reference. Result:After the treatment, the score of the patients’ symptoms and signs of the two group was lower than that before the treatment. The result of the comparison was statistically significant(P<0.01). The total effective rate of the two groups were statistically significant (P<0.05). The recurrence rate of the treatment group was 11.1%, The control group 34.4%. Conclusion: Both the two methods had effect on treating chronic urticaria. The curative efficacy of the treatment group was better than that of the control group. The recurrence rate of the treatment group was lower than that of the control group.