摘要
[目的]对比序贯与标准三联疗法治疗幽门螺杆菌(Helicobacter pylori,Hp)阳性消化性溃疡的临床疗效,探讨能更好促进溃疡愈合的治疗方案。[方法]选取Hp阳性的消化性溃疡患者150例作为研究对象,随机分为A、B、C三组,每组50例。A组行常规剂量PPI的序贯方案,B组行大剂量PPI的序贯方案,C组行传统的三联治疗(疗程均为10d)。比较3组的Hp根除率、复查胃镜下溃疡的愈合情况、治疗效果、不良反应和用药的性价比。[结果]序贯方案的Hp根除率、溃疡的愈合情况和治疗效果均明显高于传统方案(P<0.05),但在使用常规剂量PPI的序贯方案与大剂量PPI者之间并无明显差异(P>0.05);常规剂量PPI的序贯方案、大剂量PPI的序贯方案与传统三联方案之间的不良反应差异不大(P>0.05);常规剂量PPI的序贯方案用药的成本一效果比(C/E)最低。[结论]采用常规剂量PPI的序贯疗法,治疗Hp阳性的消化性溃疡具有较高的Hp根除率和愈合率,临床效果较传统三联疗法要好,性价比相对较高。
[Objective]To compare the clinical efficacy of sequential and standard triple therapy in the treatment of Helicobacter pylori （Hp） positive peptic ulcer. [Methods]A total of 150 cases of Hp positive peptic ulcer patients admitted to our hospital from June 2015 to June 2016 were randomly divided into A, B,C group with 50 cases in every groups. A group was treated with sequential program on routine dose PPI,B group was treated with sequential program on high dose PPI, C group was treated with traditional triple therapy（all for 10 days）. The eradication rate of Hp in 3 groups was compared,the healing rate of ul- cer under gastroscopy,therapeutic effect, adverse reaction and medicine cost were compared. [Results] The Hp eradication rate,ulcer healing and curative effect in both A and B were significantly higher than those in C group（P〈0.05）with no difference between A and B（P） 0.05）. There was no difference of adverse reactions difference among the three groups. The cost-efficacy in A group was the lowest in the three groups.[Conclusion]The sequential therapy with routine dose PPI has higher Hp eradication rate and heal- ing rate and lowest cost-efficacy.
出处
《临床消化病杂志》
2017年第5期287-290,共4页
Chinese Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
