摘要
目的 :比较洛美沙星口服与静脉滴注治疗伤寒的临床疗效。方法 :伤寒病人 65例 ,男性 38例 ,女性 2 7例 ,年龄 (36.6±s 2 .8)a ,19～ 5 8a。分治疗组 33例 ,在一般补液、退热的同时加用洛美沙星 0 .3g ,po ,bid ;对照组 32例 ,在一般补液、退热的同时加用洛美沙星注射液 0 .2 g ,iv ,gtt ,bid。 2组均以 14d为一个疗程。结果 :2组发热、嗜酸粒细胞计数恢复至正常的时间治疗组为 (6.9± 1.4 )d ,(11.5± 2 .6)d ,对照组为 (5 .6± 1.2 )d ,(10± 3)d差异有非常显著和显著意义 (P <0 .0 1和P <0 .0 5 ) ,脾肿大等恢复至正常的时间分别为 (10 .1±2 .9)d和 (9.4± 2 .4 )d ,差异无显著意义 (P >0 .0 5 ) ;对照组有效率为 88% ,治疗组为 85 % ,与细菌清除率相一致 ,差异均无显著意义 (P >0 .0 5 )。结论
AIM: To study clinical effect of lomefloxin oral vs lomefloxin intravenous drip in treating typhoid fever. METHODS : Sixty-five patients with typhoid were randonly divided into two groups, including thirty eight men and twenty seven women, their average age was (36.6±2.8)a, between 19-58 a. Lomefloxin oral group of thirty-three patients (as treatment group) ,while complementing of humor and reliefing of fever, was treated with lomefloxin 0.3 g, po bid for 14 d, while lomefloxin intravenous drip group of thirty-two patients (as control group), while complementing of humor and reliefing of fever, was treated with lomefloxin 0.2 g, iv, gtt, bid for 14 d. RESULTS: There was very significant difference in time from fever to recovery status (P< 0.01) and there was significant difference in time that eosinophile counts recovered to normal. For example, the time of treatment group was (6.9±1.4)d, ( 11.5±2.6)d then the time of control group was (5.6± 1.2)d, (10±3)d. There was no significant difference in time of recovery from eosinophill counts to splemegaly(P>0.05).The efficacy in treatment group was 85 % and the another one was 88 %. The rate of bacterial clearance was same. CONCLUSION: clinical effect is similar between lomefloxin oral and lomefloxin intravenous drip in treating typhoid fever.
出处
《中国新药与临床杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2003年第7期415-417,共3页
Chinese Journal of New Drugs and Clinical Remedies
