CAJ | 학술논문

目的：观察和比较含瑞巴派特和铋剂的两种方案根除幽门螺旋杆菌（ Hp）药物成本与效果的关系。方法124例患者随机分为试验组和对照组。试验组65例，给予兰索拉唑30 mg、阿莫西林1.0 g、呋喃唑酮0.1 g，每天2次，及瑞巴派特0.1 g每天3次；对照组59例给予兰索拉唑30 mg、阿莫西林1.0 g、呋喃唑酮0.1 g和胶体酒石酸铋220 mg，每天2次。2组疗程均10天。治疗第38天以14C尿素呼气试验结果判断Hp根除情况，分析疗效及药物经济学，记录和分析出现的不良反应。结果两种方案的根除率分别为72.3%（47/65）和81.4%（48/59），差异无统计学意义（P﹥0.05）；而药物成本分别为164.95元和250.1元，试验组成本-效果分析优于对照组，差异有统计学意义（ P ﹤0.05）。试验组和对照组的不良反应发生率分别为12.31%（8/65）和15.26%（9/59），差异无统计学意义（P﹥0.05），两组均未见严重不良反应。结论含瑞巴派特四联方案与含铋剂四联方案相比疗效和安全性接近，但前者价格合理，适于临床应用。
목적：관찰화비교함서파파특화필제적량충방안근제유문라선간균（ Hp）약물성본여효과적관계。방법124례환자수궤분위시험조화대조조。시험조65례，급여란색랍서30 mg、아막서림1.0 g、부남서동0.1 g，매천2차，급서파파특0.1 g매천3차；대조조59례급여란색랍서30 mg、아막서림1.0 g、부남서동0.1 g화효체주석산필220 mg，매천2차。2조료정균10천。치료제38천이14C뇨소호기시험결과판단Hp근제정황，분석료효급약물경제학，기록화분석출현적불량반응。결과량충방안적근제솔분별위72.3%（47/65）화81.4%（48/59），차이무통계학의의（P﹥0.05）；이약물성본분별위164.95원화250.1원，시험조성본-효과분석우우대조조，차이유통계학의의（ P ﹤0.05）。시험조화대조조적불량반응발생솔분별위12.31%（8/65）화15.26%（9/59），차이무통계학의의（P﹥0.05），량조균미견엄중불량반응。결론함서파파특사련방안여함필제사련방안상비료효화안전성접근，단전자개격합리，괄우림상응용。
Objective To observe and compare the efficacy and cost-effective of rebamipide-based quadruple therapy versus bismuth-based quadruple therapy. Methods 124 patients were randomly assigned to treatment group and control group. Lansoprazole 30 mg,amoxicillin 1000 mg,furazolidone 100 mg twice a day and rebamipide 100 mg three times a day were administrated to 65 patients in treatment group. Lansoprazole 30 mg,amoxicillin 1000 mg,fura-zolidone 100 mg and Bismuth 220 mg twice a day were administrated to 59 patients in control group. Courses of treat-ment were both 10 days. Hp eradication was estimated by 14C urea breath test at the 38th day after treatment. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed;adverse effects were recorded and analyzed. Data were analyzed by chi square test. Results The eradication rates of treatment group and control group were 72. 3%(47/65)and 81. 4%(48/59)respectively. There was no significant difference(P﹥0. 05)between these two groups. The cost in treatment group and control group were 164. 95 and 250. 1 yuan. Cost-effectiveness in treatment group was significantly better than that in control group (P﹤0. 05). Rates of side effects in treatment group and control group were 12. 31%(8/65)and 15. 26%(9/59)re-spectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups(P﹥0. 05). No serious adverse effect was ob-served in two groups. Conclusion Effectiveness and safety are almost the same between the two groups. However,Re-bamipide-based quadruple therapy has better cost-effectiveness,which is suitable for clinical application.