国际皮肤性病学杂志
國際皮膚性病學雜誌
국제피부성병학잡지
International Journal of Dermatology and Venereology
2015年
6期
351-353
,共3页
荨麻疹%治疗结果%疗效比较研究%阿伐斯汀%氯雷他定
蕁痳疹%治療結果%療效比較研究%阿伐斯汀%氯雷他定
담마진%치료결과%료효비교연구%아벌사정%록뢰타정
Urticaria%Treatment outcome%Comparative effectiveness research%Acrivastine%Loratadine
目的 比较阿伐斯汀和氯雷他定治疗慢性荨麻疹的疗效.方法 110例慢性荨麻疹患者随机分为两组,阿伐斯汀组56例口服阿伐斯汀胶囊8 mg,每天3次,氯雷他定组口服氯雷他定片10 mg,每天1次,疗程28 d,服药后第7、14、28天观察结果.结果 治疗总有效率两组差异无统计学意义[73.5％(25/34)比67.6％(25/37),P＞ 0.05],但治疗7d时,阿伐斯汀组无效的患者明显少于氯雷他们定组[5.9％(2/34)比32.4％(12/37),P＜0.05)];治疗7d、14d时,阿伐斯汀组风团大小和发作持续时间症状积分下降指数高于氯雷他定组(P＜0.05).患者及医师对阿伐斯汀的总体评价较好.二组不良反应发生率分别为[5.4％(3/56)和5.6％(3/54),P＞ 0.05],差异无统计学意义.结论 阿伐斯汀治疗慢性荨麻疹安全有效.
目的 比較阿伐斯汀和氯雷他定治療慢性蕁痳疹的療效.方法 110例慢性蕁痳疹患者隨機分為兩組,阿伐斯汀組56例口服阿伐斯汀膠囊8 mg,每天3次,氯雷他定組口服氯雷他定片10 mg,每天1次,療程28 d,服藥後第7、14、28天觀察結果.結果 治療總有效率兩組差異無統計學意義[73.5％(25/34)比67.6％(25/37),P＞ 0.05],但治療7d時,阿伐斯汀組無效的患者明顯少于氯雷他們定組[5.9％(2/34)比32.4％(12/37),P＜0.05)];治療7d、14d時,阿伐斯汀組風糰大小和髮作持續時間癥狀積分下降指數高于氯雷他定組(P＜0.05).患者及醫師對阿伐斯汀的總體評價較好.二組不良反應髮生率分彆為[5.4％(3/56)和5.6％(3/54),P＞ 0.05],差異無統計學意義.結論 阿伐斯汀治療慢性蕁痳疹安全有效.
목적 비교아벌사정화록뢰타정치료만성담마진적료효.방법 110례만성담마진환자수궤분위량조,아벌사정조56례구복아벌사정효낭8 mg,매천3차,록뢰타정조구복록뢰타정편10 mg,매천1차,료정28 d,복약후제7、14、28천관찰결과.결과 치료총유효솔량조차이무통계학의의[73.5％(25/34)비67.6％(25/37),P＞ 0.05],단치료7d시,아벌사정조무효적환자명현소우록뢰타문정조[5.9％(2/34)비32.4％(12/37),P＜0.05)];치료7d、14d시,아벌사정조풍단대소화발작지속시간증상적분하강지수고우록뢰타정조(P＜0.05).환자급의사대아벌사정적총체평개교호.이조불량반응발생솔분별위[5.4％(3/56)화5.6％(3/54),P＞ 0.05],차이무통계학의의.결론 아벌사정치료만성담마진안전유효.
Objective To compare the efficacy of oral acrivastine versus loratadine for the treatment of chronic urticaria.Methods Totally,110 patients with chronic urticaria were randomly divided into 2 groups:acrivastine group (n =56) treated with oral acrivastine capsules 8 mg thrice a day for 28 days,loratadine group (n =54) treated with oral loratadine tablets 10 mg once every day for 28 days.Therapeutic effects were evaluated on day 7,14 and 28 after the start of treatment.Results No significant differences were observed in the total response rate between the acrivastine group and loratadine group (73.5％ (25/34) vs.67.6％ (25/37),P ＞ 0.05),but the proportion of unresponsive patients was significantly lower in the acrivastine group than in the loratadine group (5.9％ (2/34) vs.32.4％ (12/37),P ＜ 0.05) on day 7.On day 7 and 14,the acrivastine group showed a significant increase in symptom score reducing indices (SSRIs) for wheal size and duration of episodes compared with the loratadine group (both P ＜ 0.05).Both the patients and doctors were satisfied with the efficacy of acrivastine.There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the acrivastine group and loratadine group (5.4％ (3/56) vs.5.6％ (3/54),P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion Acrivastine is safe and effective for the treatment of chronic urticaria.
