中国医院用药评价与分析
中國醫院用藥評價與分析
중국의원용약평개여분석
EVALUATION AND ANAL YSIS OF DRUG-USE IN HOSPITALS OF CHINA
2015年
4期
460-462,463
,共4页
邹东娜%许珂%侯宁%冷冰%金炎
鄒東娜%許珂%侯寧%冷冰%金炎
추동나%허가%후저%랭빙%금염
左奥硝唑%腹部感染%厌氧菌
左奧硝唑%腹部感染%厭氧菌
좌오초서%복부감염%염양균
Levornidazole%Abdominal infection%Anaerobic bacteria
目的:对左奥硝唑治疗腹部厌氧菌感染的临床有效性、安全性及药物经济学进行探讨。方法:对山东省立医院2013年3月至2014年10月收治的经筛选符合需经验性抗厌氧菌治疗的腹部厌氧菌感染患者118例,随机分为观察组( n=57)和对照组(n=61)。观察组给予左奥硝唑0.5 g静脉滴注2/日(每瓶0.5~1.0 h内滴完),5~10 d为一疗程;对照组给予奥硝唑,用药方法同观察组。观察并比较2组患者用药后的临床有效率、细菌清除率、不良反应发生率及成本-效果分析。结果:观察组临床有效率为87.72%,对照组为83.61%,2组比较,有效率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组细菌清除率为90.91%,对照组为91.67%,2组比较,细菌清除率差异无统计学意义( P>0.05);观察组平均痊愈时间为6.66 d,平均退热时间为2.82 d,平均住院天数为12.18 d,对照组则相应为7.18、3.18、13.97 d,2组上述3个指标差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05);观察组不良反应发生率低于对照组,2组比较差异无统计学意义( P>0.05),观察组未发现对照组的中枢神经系统不良反应如头晕、头痛等,2组均未发现新发及严重不良反应;观察组的住院成本及成本-效果与对照组比较更低,这一结论仍需进一步临床研究。结论:左奥硝唑用于腹部厌氧菌感染有效、安全,具有临床应用价值。
目的:對左奧硝唑治療腹部厭氧菌感染的臨床有效性、安全性及藥物經濟學進行探討。方法:對山東省立醫院2013年3月至2014年10月收治的經篩選符閤需經驗性抗厭氧菌治療的腹部厭氧菌感染患者118例,隨機分為觀察組( n=57)和對照組(n=61)。觀察組給予左奧硝唑0.5 g靜脈滴註2/日(每瓶0.5~1.0 h內滴完),5~10 d為一療程;對照組給予奧硝唑,用藥方法同觀察組。觀察併比較2組患者用藥後的臨床有效率、細菌清除率、不良反應髮生率及成本-效果分析。結果:觀察組臨床有效率為87.72%,對照組為83.61%,2組比較,有效率差異無統計學意義(P>0.05);觀察組細菌清除率為90.91%,對照組為91.67%,2組比較,細菌清除率差異無統計學意義( P>0.05);觀察組平均痊愈時間為6.66 d,平均退熱時間為2.82 d,平均住院天數為12.18 d,對照組則相應為7.18、3.18、13.97 d,2組上述3箇指標差異均無統計學意義(均P>0.05);觀察組不良反應髮生率低于對照組,2組比較差異無統計學意義( P>0.05),觀察組未髮現對照組的中樞神經繫統不良反應如頭暈、頭痛等,2組均未髮現新髮及嚴重不良反應;觀察組的住院成本及成本-效果與對照組比較更低,這一結論仍需進一步臨床研究。結論:左奧硝唑用于腹部厭氧菌感染有效、安全,具有臨床應用價值。
목적:대좌오초서치료복부염양균감염적림상유효성、안전성급약물경제학진행탐토。방법:대산동성립의원2013년3월지2014년10월수치적경사선부합수경험성항염양균치료적복부염양균감염환자118례,수궤분위관찰조( n=57)화대조조(n=61)。관찰조급여좌오초서0.5 g정맥적주2/일(매병0.5~1.0 h내적완),5~10 d위일료정;대조조급여오초서,용약방법동관찰조。관찰병비교2조환자용약후적림상유효솔、세균청제솔、불량반응발생솔급성본-효과분석。결과:관찰조림상유효솔위87.72%,대조조위83.61%,2조비교,유효솔차이무통계학의의(P>0.05);관찰조세균청제솔위90.91%,대조조위91.67%,2조비교,세균청제솔차이무통계학의의( P>0.05);관찰조평균전유시간위6.66 d,평균퇴열시간위2.82 d,평균주원천수위12.18 d,대조조칙상응위7.18、3.18、13.97 d,2조상술3개지표차이균무통계학의의(균P>0.05);관찰조불량반응발생솔저우대조조,2조비교차이무통계학의의( P>0.05),관찰조미발현대조조적중추신경계통불량반응여두훈、두통등,2조균미발현신발급엄중불량반응;관찰조적주원성본급성본-효과여대조조비교경저,저일결론잉수진일보림상연구。결론:좌오초서용우복부염양균감염유효、안전,구유림상응용개치。
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy, safety and pharmacoeconomics of levornidazole in the treatment of abdominal anaerobic infection.METHODS:The patients with abdominal anaerobic infection admitted to Shandong Provincial Hospital from Mar.2013 to Oct.2014 were randomized to either observation group ( n =57 ) treated by levornidazole at a dose of 0.5 g twice daily for 5 to 10 days or control group ( n=61 ) treated by omidazole at a dose of 0.5 g twice daily for 5 to 10 days.The clinical efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness and bacterial clearance rate of levornidazole in the treatment of abdominal anaerobic infection were recorded and compared between the two groups. RESULTS:The response rate in the observation group vs.control group was 83.61% vs.87.72%, showing no significant differences between the two groups ( P>0.05);The rate of bacterial clearance in the observation group vs. control group was 90.91% vs.91.67%, which also did not reach significant difference ( P>0.05 ) .The average healing time was 6.66 days in study group and 7.18 days in control group, the average fever clearance time was 2.82 days in observation group vs.3.18 days in control group, and the average hospitalization days were 12.18 days in observation group and 13.97 days in control group, with all three indicators showing no significant differences between two groups (P>0.05).The incidence of adverse drug reaction was lower in the observation group than in the control group yet the differences between the two groups were nonsignificant ( P>0.05 ) .The adverse drug reaction of central nervous system including dizzy and headache noted in the control group were unnoted in the observation group.Neither group showed serious adverse drug reaction.The hospitalization cost and the cost-effectiveness ratio were lower in the observation group than in the control group, and this result need to be verified in further clinical research. CONCLUSION:Levornidazole is safe and effective thus of clinical application value in the treatment of abdominal anaerobic infection.