中国医药
中國醫藥
중국의약
CHINA MEDICINE
2013年
6期
835-836
,共2页
鼻炎,变应性,季节性%青少年%盐酸氮(卓)司汀%丙酸氟替卡松
鼻炎,變應性,季節性%青少年%鹽痠氮(卓)司汀%丙痠氟替卡鬆
비염,변응성,계절성%청소년%염산담(탁)사정%병산불체잡송
Rhinitis,allergic,seasonal%Adolescent%Azelastine hydrochloride%Fluticasone propionate
目的 研究盐酸氮(卓)司汀与丙酸氟替卡松治疗青少年季节性变应性鼻炎(SAR)的疗效及安全性.方法 选取2009年3月至2012年3月在我院诊治的SAR青少年患者76例,随机分为盐酸氮(革)司汀组和丙酸氟替卡松组,各38例,分别给予盐酸氮(卓)司汀鼻喷剂和丙酸氟替卡松鼻喷剂治疗,评价2组疗效,并通过鼻部症状总评分(TNSS)和服部症状总评分(TOSS)比较2组临床症状改善情况.结果 盐酸氮革司汀组和丙酸氟替卡松组总有效率分别为76.3％ (29/38)和81.6％ (31/38),组间差异无统计学意义(x2=0.32,P＞0.05).盐酸氮(卓)司汀组治疗前后TNSS分别为(8.7±2.3)分和(5.5±1.6)分,TOSS分别为(6.5±1.8)分和(3.9±1.2)分；丙酸氟替卡松组治疗前后TNSS评分分别为(8.4±2.2)分和(4.6±1.6)分,TOSS分别为(6.6±1.6)分和(4.5±1.3).2组治疗前后TNSS和TOSS的差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05)；治疗后,盐酸氮(卓)司汀组与丙酸氟替卡松组的TNSS和TOSS差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).盐酸氮革司汀组有2例患者发生嗜睡,丙酸氟替卡松组1例鼻出血.结论 盐酸氮(草)司汀与丙酸氟替卡松在治疗青少年SAR中均安全有效,二者在改善患者鼻部及眼部症状中效果相似.
目的 研究鹽痠氮(卓)司汀與丙痠氟替卡鬆治療青少年季節性變應性鼻炎(SAR)的療效及安全性.方法 選取2009年3月至2012年3月在我院診治的SAR青少年患者76例,隨機分為鹽痠氮(革)司汀組和丙痠氟替卡鬆組,各38例,分彆給予鹽痠氮(卓)司汀鼻噴劑和丙痠氟替卡鬆鼻噴劑治療,評價2組療效,併通過鼻部癥狀總評分(TNSS)和服部癥狀總評分(TOSS)比較2組臨床癥狀改善情況.結果 鹽痠氮革司汀組和丙痠氟替卡鬆組總有效率分彆為76.3％ (29/38)和81.6％ (31/38),組間差異無統計學意義(x2=0.32,P＞0.05).鹽痠氮(卓)司汀組治療前後TNSS分彆為(8.7±2.3)分和(5.5±1.6)分,TOSS分彆為(6.5±1.8)分和(3.9±1.2)分；丙痠氟替卡鬆組治療前後TNSS評分分彆為(8.4±2.2)分和(4.6±1.6)分,TOSS分彆為(6.6±1.6)分和(4.5±1.3).2組治療前後TNSS和TOSS的差異均有統計學意義(P＜0.05)；治療後,鹽痠氮(卓)司汀組與丙痠氟替卡鬆組的TNSS和TOSS差異均無統計學意義(P＞0.05).鹽痠氮革司汀組有2例患者髮生嗜睡,丙痠氟替卡鬆組1例鼻齣血.結論 鹽痠氮(草)司汀與丙痠氟替卡鬆在治療青少年SAR中均安全有效,二者在改善患者鼻部及眼部癥狀中效果相似.
목적 연구염산담(탁)사정여병산불체잡송치료청소년계절성변응성비염(SAR)적료효급안전성.방법 선취2009년3월지2012년3월재아원진치적SAR청소년환자76례,수궤분위염산담(혁)사정조화병산불체잡송조,각38례,분별급여염산담(탁)사정비분제화병산불체잡송비분제치료,평개2조료효,병통과비부증상총평분(TNSS)화복부증상총평분(TOSS)비교2조림상증상개선정황.결과 염산담혁사정조화병산불체잡송조총유효솔분별위76.3％ (29/38)화81.6％ (31/38),조간차이무통계학의의(x2=0.32,P＞0.05).염산담(탁)사정조치료전후TNSS분별위(8.7±2.3)분화(5.5±1.6)분,TOSS분별위(6.5±1.8)분화(3.9±1.2)분；병산불체잡송조치료전후TNSS평분분별위(8.4±2.2)분화(4.6±1.6)분,TOSS분별위(6.6±1.6)분화(4.5±1.3).2조치료전후TNSS화TOSS적차이균유통계학의의(P＜0.05)；치료후,염산담(탁)사정조여병산불체잡송조적TNSS화TOSS차이균무통계학의의(P＞0.05).염산담혁사정조유2례환자발생기수,병산불체잡송조1례비출혈.결론 염산담(초)사정여병산불체잡송재치료청소년SAR중균안전유효,이자재개선환자비부급안부증상중효과상사.
Objective To study the effect of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in adolescent seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).Methods Seventy-six patients were selected from March 2009 to March 2012.All patients were randomly divided into AZE group (treated with AZE) and FP group (treated with FP).The efficiency rate,total nasal symptoms scores (TNSS) and total ocular symptom score (TOSS) were compared.Results The efficiency rate of AZE was 76.3％ (29/38) ; FP was 81.6％ (31/38) ; no significant difference was observed (P ＞ 0.05).The TNSS before treatment was (8.7 ± 2.3) scores and (8.4 ± 2.2) scores and it was (5.5 ± 1.6) scores and (4.6 ± 1.6) scores after treatment.The TOSS before treatment was (6.5 ± 1.8) scores and (6.6 ± 1.6) scores and after treatment it was (3.9 ± 1.2) scores and (4.5 ± 1.3) scores.No significant differences were observed between groups after treatment(P ＞ 0.05).There were 2 cases showing somnolent in AZE group and 1 case reported to have nosebleed.Conclusion Both AZE and FP are effective and safe in treatment of adolescent SAR; no significant difference is observed in TNSS or TOSS.
