中国医药
中國醫藥
중국의약
CHINA MEDICINE
2015年
5期
671-675
,共5页
邹建平%张建军%马晓雁%王志恒%王树锋
鄒建平%張建軍%馬曉雁%王誌恆%王樹鋒
추건평%장건군%마효안%왕지항%왕수봉
小肠损伤%非甾体消炎药%埃索美拉唑%马来酸伊索拉定
小腸損傷%非甾體消炎藥%埃索美拉唑%馬來痠伊索拉定
소장손상%비치체소염약%애색미랍서%마래산이색랍정
Small intestinal injury%Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug%Esomeprazole%Irsogladine maleate
目的 探讨埃索美拉唑联合马来酸伊索拉定治疗非甾体消炎药相关性小肠病变的可行性.方法 将50只SD大鼠完全随机分为5组:埃索美拉唑与马来酸伊索拉定联合治疗组、马来酸伊索拉定治疗组、埃索美拉唑治疗组、模型组与空白对照组,每组10只.治疗组与模型组均给予双氯芬酸钠(15 mg/kg灌胃)造模,对照组给予0.9％氯化钠注射液1 ml灌胃,连用3d,3d后治疗组分别给予埃索美拉唑、马来酸伊索拉定、埃索美拉唑与马来酸伊索拉定联合用药,空白对照组与模型组给予0.9％氯化钠注射液1 ml,7d后处死大鼠,取小肠组织行苏木精—伊红(HE)染色观察病理改变,对各组大鼠行黏膜组织学损伤评分与肠黏膜损伤大体形态评分,并进行比较.用实时定量聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测各组大鼠小肠组织环氧合酶-1、环氧合酶-2的mRNA水平.结果 与空白对照组相比,模型组大鼠小肠黏膜损伤大体形态评分和组织病理评分明显增高,差异有统计学意义[(4.59±0.40)分比(0.00±0.00)分,(4.00±0.08)分比(0.00±0.00)分,P＜0.05].与模型组相比,埃索美拉唑治疗组、马来酸伊索拉定治疗组、埃索美拉唑与马来酸伊索拉定联合治疗组大体形态评分、病理评分明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).与埃索美拉唑治疗组、马来酸伊索拉定治疗组相比,埃索美拉唑与马来酸伊索拉定联合治疗组大体形态评分和病理评分明显降低,差异有统计学意义[(1.98±0.88)分比(2.80±1.21)、(3.10±1.02)分,(1.67 ±0.98)分比(2.2l±1.01)、(2.18±0.91)分,P＜0.05].与空白对照组相比,模型组小肠、环氧合酶-l mRNA水平明显降低、环氧合酶-2 mRNA水平明显增高,差异有统计学意义(1.09 ±0.40比3.23±0.65、3.50±0.34比0.23 ±0.12,P＜0.05).与模型组相比,埃索美拉唑治疗组、马来酸伊索拉定治疗组、埃索美拉唑与马来酸伊索拉定联合治疗组环氧合酶-1 mRNA水平明显增高,差异有统计学意义(3.40±1.32、3.28±1.42、4.98 ±0.88比1.09±0.40,P＜0.05);环氧合酶-2明显降低,差异有统计学意义(2.21±1.01、2.37 ±0.78、2.01 ±0.98比3.50±0.34,P＜0.05).与埃索美拉唑治疗组、马来酸伊索拉定治疗组相比,埃索美拉唑与马来酸伊索拉定联合治疗组环氧合酶-1 mRNA水平明显增高,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),环氧合酶-2 mRNA水平差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 埃索美拉唑联合马来酸伊索拉定可有效治疗非甾体消炎药相关性小肠损伤.
目的 探討埃索美拉唑聯閤馬來痠伊索拉定治療非甾體消炎藥相關性小腸病變的可行性.方法 將50隻SD大鼠完全隨機分為5組:埃索美拉唑與馬來痠伊索拉定聯閤治療組、馬來痠伊索拉定治療組、埃索美拉唑治療組、模型組與空白對照組,每組10隻.治療組與模型組均給予雙氯芬痠鈉(15 mg/kg灌胃)造模,對照組給予0.9％氯化鈉註射液1 ml灌胃,連用3d,3d後治療組分彆給予埃索美拉唑、馬來痠伊索拉定、埃索美拉唑與馬來痠伊索拉定聯閤用藥,空白對照組與模型組給予0.9％氯化鈉註射液1 ml,7d後處死大鼠,取小腸組織行囌木精—伊紅(HE)染色觀察病理改變,對各組大鼠行黏膜組織學損傷評分與腸黏膜損傷大體形態評分,併進行比較.用實時定量聚閤酶鏈反應(PCR)檢測各組大鼠小腸組織環氧閤酶-1、環氧閤酶-2的mRNA水平.結果 與空白對照組相比,模型組大鼠小腸黏膜損傷大體形態評分和組織病理評分明顯增高,差異有統計學意義[(4.59±0.40)分比(0.00±0.00)分,(4.00±0.08)分比(0.00±0.00)分,P＜0.05].與模型組相比,埃索美拉唑治療組、馬來痠伊索拉定治療組、埃索美拉唑與馬來痠伊索拉定聯閤治療組大體形態評分、病理評分明顯降低,差異有統計學意義(P＜0.05).與埃索美拉唑治療組、馬來痠伊索拉定治療組相比,埃索美拉唑與馬來痠伊索拉定聯閤治療組大體形態評分和病理評分明顯降低,差異有統計學意義[(1.98±0.88)分比(2.80±1.21)、(3.10±1.02)分,(1.67 ±0.98)分比(2.2l±1.01)、(2.18±0.91)分,P＜0.05].與空白對照組相比,模型組小腸、環氧閤酶-l mRNA水平明顯降低、環氧閤酶-2 mRNA水平明顯增高,差異有統計學意義(1.09 ±0.40比3.23±0.65、3.50±0.34比0.23 ±0.12,P＜0.05).與模型組相比,埃索美拉唑治療組、馬來痠伊索拉定治療組、埃索美拉唑與馬來痠伊索拉定聯閤治療組環氧閤酶-1 mRNA水平明顯增高,差異有統計學意義(3.40±1.32、3.28±1.42、4.98 ±0.88比1.09±0.40,P＜0.05);環氧閤酶-2明顯降低,差異有統計學意義(2.21±1.01、2.37 ±0.78、2.01 ±0.98比3.50±0.34,P＜0.05).與埃索美拉唑治療組、馬來痠伊索拉定治療組相比,埃索美拉唑與馬來痠伊索拉定聯閤治療組環氧閤酶-1 mRNA水平明顯增高,差異有統計學意義(P＜0.05),環氧閤酶-2 mRNA水平差異無統計學意義(P＞0.05).結論 埃索美拉唑聯閤馬來痠伊索拉定可有效治療非甾體消炎藥相關性小腸損傷.
목적 탐토애색미랍서연합마래산이색랍정치료비치체소염약상관성소장병변적가행성.방법 장50지SD대서완전수궤분위5조:애색미랍서여마래산이색랍정연합치료조、마래산이색랍정치료조、애색미랍서치료조、모형조여공백대조조,매조10지.치료조여모형조균급여쌍록분산납(15 mg/kg관위)조모,대조조급여0.9％록화납주사액1 ml관위,련용3d,3d후치료조분별급여애색미랍서、마래산이색랍정、애색미랍서여마래산이색랍정연합용약,공백대조조여모형조급여0.9％록화납주사액1 ml,7d후처사대서,취소장조직행소목정—이홍(HE)염색관찰병리개변,대각조대서행점막조직학손상평분여장점막손상대체형태평분,병진행비교.용실시정량취합매련반응(PCR)검측각조대서소장조직배양합매-1、배양합매-2적mRNA수평.결과 여공백대조조상비,모형조대서소장점막손상대체형태평분화조직병리평분명현증고,차이유통계학의의[(4.59±0.40)분비(0.00±0.00)분,(4.00±0.08)분비(0.00±0.00)분,P＜0.05].여모형조상비,애색미랍서치료조、마래산이색랍정치료조、애색미랍서여마래산이색랍정연합치료조대체형태평분、병리평분명현강저,차이유통계학의의(P＜0.05).여애색미랍서치료조、마래산이색랍정치료조상비,애색미랍서여마래산이색랍정연합치료조대체형태평분화병리평분명현강저,차이유통계학의의[(1.98±0.88)분비(2.80±1.21)、(3.10±1.02)분,(1.67 ±0.98)분비(2.2l±1.01)、(2.18±0.91)분,P＜0.05].여공백대조조상비,모형조소장、배양합매-l mRNA수평명현강저、배양합매-2 mRNA수평명현증고,차이유통계학의의(1.09 ±0.40비3.23±0.65、3.50±0.34비0.23 ±0.12,P＜0.05).여모형조상비,애색미랍서치료조、마래산이색랍정치료조、애색미랍서여마래산이색랍정연합치료조배양합매-1 mRNA수평명현증고,차이유통계학의의(3.40±1.32、3.28±1.42、4.98 ±0.88비1.09±0.40,P＜0.05);배양합매-2명현강저,차이유통계학의의(2.21±1.01、2.37 ±0.78、2.01 ±0.98비3.50±0.34,P＜0.05).여애색미랍서치료조、마래산이색랍정치료조상비,애색미랍서여마래산이색랍정연합치료조배양합매-1 mRNA수평명현증고,차이유통계학의의(P＜0.05),배양합매-2 mRNA수평차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).결론 애색미랍서연합마래산이색랍정가유효치료비치체소염약상관성소장손상.
Objective To explore the effect of esomeprazole combined with irsogladine on small intestine injury induced by non steroidal anti inflammatory drug (NSAID).Methods Fifty adult SD rats were randomly divided into control group,model group,irsogladine maleate group,esomeprazole group and irsogladine maleate combined with esomeprazole group (each n =10).Model group and the three drug groups were administrated with 15 mg/kg diclofenac and control group was administrated with 0.9％ sodium chloride (intragastric administration) for 3 days,and then the related drugs were administrated the three drug groups,and 0.9％ sodium chloride were administrated in control group and model group for 7 days.After 7 days of treatment,the animals were sacrificed,the pathological changes of the small intestine were observed using hematoxylin-eosin stain and the gross morphological and histological injury were scored.The quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to detect the mRNA level of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2.Results The gross morphological and histopathological injury score of the small intestine were obviously higher in model group compared with those in control group [(4.59 ± 0.40) scores vs (0.00 ± 0.00) scores,(4.00 ± 0.08) scores vs (0.00 ± 0.00) scores] (P ＜ 0.05),while were obviously lower in irsogladine maleate group,esomeprazole group and irsogladine maleate combined with esomeprazole group compared with in model group [(2.80 ± 1.21),(3.10 ± 1.02),(1.98 ± 0.88) scores vs (4.59 ±0.40) scores,(2.21 ±1.01),(2.18 ±0.91),(1.67 ±0.98) scores vs (4.00 ±0.08) scores] (P＜ 0.05),with statistical differences between irsogladine maleate combined with esomeprazole group and irsogladine maleate group,esomeprazole group (P ＜ 0.05).The COX-1 mRNA was significantly lower and the COX-2 mRNA was significantly higher in model group compared with control group (1.09 ± 0.40 vs 3.23 ± 0.65,3.50 ± 0.34 vs 0.23 ± 0.12)(P ＜ 0.05),while were both improved in irsogladine maleate group,esomeprazole group and irsogladine maleate combined with esomeprazole group (3.40 ± 1.32,3.28 ± 1.42,4.98 ± 0.88 vs 1.09 ± 0.40;2.21 ±1.01,2.37 ±0.78,2.01 ±0.98 vs 3.50 ±0.34) (P ＜0.05).There were significant differences in COX-1 mRNA (P ＜ 0.05) and no significant differences in COX-2 mRNA (P ＞ 0.05) between irsogladine maleate combined with esomeprazole group and irsogladine maleate group.Conclusion Irsogladine maleate combined with esomeprazole is more effective in prevention of NSAID induced mucosa injury of small intestine compared with single drug application.
