摘要
目的 :观察托吡酯治疗面肌痉挛的疗效并与卡马西平作比较。方法 :88例面肌痉挛病人分为托吡酯组 4 7例 [男性 2 1例 ,女性 2 6例 ,年龄 (5 3±s 8)a ],予托吡酯 2 5mg ,po ,qd ,疗效不满意者每隔1wk加量 2 5mg ,bid ,达满意效果后维持治疗。卡马西平组 4 1例 [男性 18例 ,女性 2 3例 ,年龄 (5 2±11)a],予卡马西平 10 0mg ,po ,bid ,疗效不满意者每隔 1wk加量 10 0mg ,tid ,最大剂量不超过 6 0 0mg·d- 1。治疗 2mo后 ,采用面肌痉挛分级标准及电生理学进行疗效评价。结果 :托吡酯组临床症状显著改善率为 74 % ,卡马西平组显著改善率为 4 9%(P <0 .0 5 )。 2组治疗期间不良反应轻微 ,不影响治疗。 11例托吡酯治疗病人面肌自发动作电位爆发频率显著降低 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论 :托吡酯治疗面肌痉挛较卡马西平疗效好 。
AIM: To observe the effects of topiramate (TPM) vs carbamazepine in the treatment of facial spasm. METHODS: Eighty eight patients with facial spasm were divied into TPM group and carbamazepine (CBZ) group. In the TPM group, forty seven patients ( M 21, F 26; age (53 ± s 8) a) were treated with TPM 25 mg, po , qd and its dose was added 25 mg every week, po , bid until a best clinic response was achieved. In the CBZ group, forty one patients (M 18, F 23; age (52 ± 11) a ) were treated with CBZ 100 mg, po , bid and its dose was added 100 mg every week, po , tid until the conditions improved or its dose increased to 600 mg·d -1 . Two months after the treatment, the effects were assessed by facial spasm scale and electrophysiology. RESULTS: Thirty five patients ( 74 % ) in the TPM group and twenty patients ( 49 % ) in the CBZ group had obvious improvement of clinical symptoms. The total clinical effective rates in the TPM group differed significantly from that in the CBZ group ( P < 0.05 ). The adverse reactions were mild and did not hinder the treatment. Eleven patients of TPM treatment showed that the intermittent bursts of spontaneous action potentials were obviously reduced ( P <0.01). CONCLUSION: TMP appears to be an better drug in the treatment of facial spasm than carbamazepine and has mild adverse reactions.
出处
《中国新药与临床杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2003年第6期344-347,共4页
Chinese Journal of New Drugs and Clinical Remedies
关键词
托吡酯
面肌痉挛
卡马西平
电生理学
topiramate
muscle spasticity
facial muscles
electrophysiology
