西替利嗪治疗过敏性鼻炎120例疗效观察

目的 观察西替利嗪治疗过敏性鼻炎的疗效及不良反应.方法 对120例过敏性鼻炎患者每日口服西替利嗪10 mg,连续4周,随访患者的临床疗效和不良反应.结果 随访1～3年,显效78例,有效34例,无效8例,总有效率93.3%(112/120);治疗后症状分级记分(3.21±1.67)分,明显低于治疗前症状分级记分(8.91±2.23)分.结论 西替利嗪治疗过敏性鼻炎具有疗效显著、不良反应少等优点,是治疗过敏性鼻炎的理想药物之一.     

盐酸西替利嗪片治疗常年性过敏性鼻炎的疗效观察

盐酸西替利嗪片主要用于抗过敏的治疗,是选择性地组胺H1受体拮抗剂。为观察其临床疗效及不良反应,笔者对28例常年性过敏性鼻炎患者进行1~4个疗程的治疗,现报告如下。1一般资料选择28名常年性过敏性鼻炎门诊患者,均符合诊断标准,男15例,女13例,最小年龄为12岁,最大年龄为68岁,平均年龄为40岁。2治疗方法口服盐酸西替利嗪片,每次10mg,1日2次,7d为一个疗程,维持治疗1~4个疗程,伴有其它症状做相应处理并记录。3疗效判定通过1个疗程的治疗有效10例,有效率为50%,2~4个疗程有效23例,总有效率为82.1%(见表2),无明显严重不良反应。表1盐酸西替利嗪片…     

中西药联合治疗过敏性鼻炎临床观察

目的观察中西药联合治疗过敏性鼻炎的临床疗效。方法将120例过敏性鼻炎患者随机分为试验组和对照组各60例。试验组予玉屏风散联合西替利嗪治疗，对照组单用西替利嗪治疗。观察2组临床疗效。结果试验组总有效率为98．3％高于对照组的71．7％，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论中西药联合治疗过敏性鼻炎疗效显著，具有标本兼治的效果，值得临床推广应用。     

盐酸西替利嗪治疗46例过敏性鼻炎的临床疗效分析

目的：观察盐酸西替利嗪治疗过敏性鼻炎的临床疗效。方法：选择2013年1～12月我院收治的过敏性鼻炎患者46例,按照掷骰子法分为治疗组与对照组,两组患者一般资料比较,差异不存在统计学意义（P〉0.05）。治疗组患者均给予盐酸西替利嗪片治疗,对照组患者均给予氯雷他定治疗,观察并比较两组患者疗效及不良反应。结果：治疗组总有效率（91.31%）略高于对照组总有效率（86.95%）,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。治疗组不良反应发生率（13.04%）远低于对照组不良反应发生率（39.13%）,差异存在统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论：盐酸西替利嗪治疗过敏性鼻炎疗效显著,不良反应发生率低,具有较高的安全性。     

盐酸非索非那定胶囊治疗过敏性鼻炎的多中心临床研究

目的：评价盐酸非索非那定胶囊治疗过敏性鼻炎的疗效和安全性。方法：本研究采用多中心、随机、双盲、阳性药物平行对照的临床研究方法。受试者144例，随机分成试验组和对照组各72例。试验组口服盐酸非索非那定胶囊60mg，2次／d；对照组服用盐酸西替利嗪片10mg，1次／d，总疗程均为14d。结果：治疗后2周，两组患者各项症状明显改善，症状积分及病情分级数均有明显下降；试验组痊愈率为18．46％，有效率为69．23％；对照组痊愈率为28．67％，有效率为65．67％，两组间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。综合疗效评价：试验组改善率为70．31％，对照组改善率为71．64％，两组间无统计学差异（P〉0．05）。所有患者在治疗过程中均未出现严重药品不良事件。试验组和对照组不良反应发生率分别为10．77％和20．90％。结论：盐酸非索非那定胶囊治疗过敏性鼻炎疗效明确，无明显严重不良反应，患者耐受性好。     

盐酸西替利嗪治疗儿童过敏性咳嗽的疗效分析

目的探讨盐酸西替利嗪治疗儿童过敏性咳嗽的临床疗效。方法收治儿童过敏性咳嗽的患者76例,随机分为两组,每组38例,对照组给予孟鲁司特口服,2～5岁,1次4rag,6岁以上1次5rag,每日1次;观察组在对照组的基础上给予口服盐酸西替利嗪,2—12岁1次5mg。12岁以上1次lOmg,每日1次。结果对照组总有效率为94．7％,观察组总有效率为78．9％,两组比较差异有显著性（P〈O．05）。两组治疗过程中均未发生明显不良反应结论盐酸西替利嗪治疗儿童过敏性咳嗽疗效确切,不良反应少。值得推广。     

中联鼻炎片对过敏性鼻炎TNF-α及IL-4的影响

目的：观察中联鼻炎片对过敏性鼻炎患者肿瘤坏死因子（TN-α）及白介素4（IL-4）的影响及临床疗效。方法：将过敏性鼻炎患者96例随机分为两组，均予西替利嗪对症治疗，治疗组加用中联鼻炎片。治疗前后检测血清TNF-α及IL-4。结果：治疗组疗效优于对照组。治疗组治疗后TNF-α及IL-4值显著降低（P〈0．01）。结论：中西药合用治疗过敏性鼻炎疗效优于单用西替利嗪。     

盐酸西替利嗪治疗常年性变应性鼻炎的临床观察

目的：观察西替利嗪治疗常年性变应性鼻炎（PAR）的疗效及不良反应。方法：给予136例PAR患每日口服西替利嗪10mg，连续4周，禁用其他抗过敏药或滴鼻剂。结果：随访1年，显效87例（63．97％），有效40例（29．41％），无效9例（6．62％），总有效率93．38％，无严重并发症发生。结论：西替利嗪治疗PAR具有疗效显，不良反应少等优点，有较好临床应用价值。     

丙酸倍氯米松鼻气雾剂治疗变应性鼻炎126例临床观察

目的探讨伯克纳（丙酸倍氯米松鼻气雾剂）治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效。方法对126例临床诊断为变应性鼻炎的患者随即分成3组：盐酸西替利嗪治疗组40例,伯克纳组40例,联合治疗组46例,分别于治疗后7d和第14d,对患者的症状和体征进行评估计分。结果盐酸西替利嗪和伯克纳对减轻特应性鼻炎的症状均有效;联合治疗组和伯克纳组疗效高于盐酸西替利嗪组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。结论H1受体拮抗剂和糖皮质激素联合使用是比较有效的治疗特应性鼻炎的方法。     

地氯雷他定和盐酸西替利嗪治疗常年性变应性鼻炎的临床对比观察

目的观察地氯雷他定治疗常年性变应性鼻炎的临床疗效。方法将符合入选标准的90例患者随机分为地氯雷他组和盐酸两替利嗪组,两组给药方法相同,连续服药21天,根据症状积分下降指数进行疗效评估。结果地氯雷他定组46例,盐酸西替利嗪组44例,地氯雷他定组总有效率为70．5％;盐酸西替利嗪组总有效率为69．6％。两绀均未发现严重的不良反应。地氯雷他定主要副作用为困倦和口干,盐酸西替利嗪主要副作用亦为困倦和口干。结论地氯雷他定治疗变应性鼻炎疗效好,疗效与盐酸西替利嗪相似,导致困倦的副作用较盐酸西替利嗪低。     

国产西替利嗪治疗荨麻疹50例临床观察

目的 验证国产西替利嗪治疗荨麻疹的临床疗效及不良反应。方法 采用随机、单盲法,将50例急、慢性荨麻疹患者随机分为治疗组(口服国产西替利嗪,30例),对照组(口服比利时UCB公司产西替利嗪,20例)。每日10mg,急、慢性疗程分别为7d、14d。结果 显效率46.67％,总有效率86.67％,不良反应轻微,与进口西替利嗪相比无差异显著性。结论 国产西替利嗪治疗荨麻疹作用强,无中枢镇静作用。     

盐酸西替利嗪治疗常年性变应性鼻炎的临床观察

目的:观察西替利嗪治疗常年性变应性鼻炎(PAR)的疗效及不良反应。方法:给予136例PAR患者每日口服西替利嗪10mg,连续4周,禁用其他抗过敏药或滴鼻剂。结果;随访1年,显效87例(63.97％),有效40例(29.41％),无效9例(6.62％),总有效率93.38％,无严重并发症发生。结论:西替利嗪治疗PAR具有疗效显著,不良反应少等优点,有较好临床应用价值。     

Comparative activity of cetirizine and mizolastine on histamine-induced skin wheal and flare responses at 24 h

AIMS: The aim of our study was to compare the activity of cetirizine 10 mg with that of mizolastine 10 mg vs placebo at 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled, three-way cross-over study with a wash-out period of 7 +/- 2 days between each period. The study included 36 healthy volunteers (18--50 years, mean age = 32 years; 9 males). The objective measurement was the cutaneous reactivity to increasing concentrations of histamine (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 mg ml(-1)) administered by prick tests. The reactivity was evaluated by the wheal and flare areas (mm2). The AUC (area under curves) values of the wheal and flare areas as a function of the log2 transformed histamine concentration were calculated for each subject and treatment, and compared. RESULTS: A highly significant treatment effect was evidenced both for wheal and flare responses (P = 0.0001). This indicates the good activity of both cetirizine 10 mg and mizolastine 10 mg in inhibiting skin wheal and flare reactions to histamine. In addition, the mean AUC values significantly differed between cetirizine and mizolastine (64.8 and 117.8 log2 (mg ml(-1)) x mm2 for wheal, and 939.4 and 2340.8 for flare, respectively; P = 0.0001), with a superior activity of cetirizine than mizolastine at 24 h after intake both on wheal and flare responses. The tolerance of cetirizine and mizolastine was good. The severity of the adverse events was never more than 'moderate', 'fatigue' being the most frequent reported symptom [cetirizine (6 subjects), placebo (3), mizolastine (5)], followed by 'somnolence' [cetirizine (0), placebo (1), mizolastine (3)]. There was no serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that cetirizine (10 mg) suppresses skin reactivity to histamine more effectively than mizolastine (10 mg) 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers.     

Double-blind,parallel, randomized pilot study comparing the efficacy and tolerance of cetirizine 10 mg,mequitazine 2 × 5 mg and placebo in the treatment of patients suffering from chronic urticaria: Comparison of suppressive effects on histamine-induced weals and flares

In a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 29 adult patients suffering from chronic urticaria were treated with either cetirizine 10 mg od (n = 10), mequitazine 5 mg bid (n = 10), or placebo (n = 9) for 3 weeks. Three symptoms (weals, erythema, pruritus) were rated according to severity (none, mild, moderate, severe) by the investigator at each of the four visits (days 1, 3, 14, 21). At each visit the investigator and patients also assessed the patients' general condition using a 5-point scoring system (very bad, bad, moderate, good, very good). On day 21 the global evaluation of efficacy and tolerance was assessed by the investigator and patients on a 4-point scale (excellent, good, moderate, bad). Also, a histamine skin-prick test was performed on days 3, 14, and 21. Evaluation of safety was based on the frequency of patients reporting adverse events as well as the clinical laboratory results. The cetirizine, mequitazine, and placebo groups of patients were comparable at inclusion. Overall compliance with the trial schedule was excellent for all groups. After 3 days of treatment a significant improvement in control of all urticaria symptoms was observed in the cetirizine group. Cetirizine elicited a statistically significant better control of pruritus (P = 0.006) and erythema (P = 0.018) than mequitazine on day 21. A trend in favor of cetirizine vs. mequitazine was also observed regarding control of weals (P = 0.114). Cetirizine clearly and rapidly improved the general condition of the patient as evaluated by both patients and investigator compared to the baseline results. The differences vs. mequitazine as well as vs. placebo were statistically significant on every visit, starting from day 3. After three weeks of treatment, the clinical efficacy results in the cetirizine group were rated by both patients and investigator as excellent or good, which was statistically significantly better than the results obtained in the mequitazine and placebo group (P > 0.05). The histamine skin-prick test results revealed a marked difference for the group treated with cetirizine compared to the two other groups in favor of CTZ. On day 3, cetirizine produced a statistically significant suppression of the weals (98%) and flares (74%), compared to 24% and 3%, respectively, by mequitazine. With respect to the tolerance results, no statistically significant differences were observed between the three groups. The safety profile was similar for all groups. No serious adverse event has been reported during the present study, nor did the treatments induce any clinically significant abnormal changes in the laboratory tests. It can be concluded from the present study that the effect of cetirizine was statistically and clinically significantly superior to that of mequitazine. On the other hand, of all parameters studied there were no marked differences between the patients of the mequitazine group and the patients of the placebo group. Drug Dev. Res. 43:185–192, 1998. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

西替利嗪与阿司咪唑治疗常年变应性鼻炎

目的：比较西替利嗪与阿司咪唑治疗常年变应性鼻炎的疗效。方法：将常年变应性鼻炎病人７４例（男性３４例，女性４０例，年龄３５±ｓ１０ａ）随机分为西替利嗪治疗组４３例和阿司咪唑对照组３１例。治疗组与对照组分别口服西替利嗪和阿司咪唑各１０ｍｇ／ｄ×１０ｄ，并辅以０．５％可的松和１％麻黄碱滴鼻，每日２～３次。结果：治疗组和对照组总有效率分别为９５％与８１％（Ｐ＞０．０５）。１ｈ内治疗组起效４０例，对照组３例（Ｐ＜０．０１）。治疗组嗜睡１例，对照组６例（Ｐ＜０．０５）。结论：西替利嗪治疗常年变应性鼻炎与阿司咪唑比较具有起效快、不良反应少的特点。     

西替利嗪联合雷公藤多苷治疗甲状腺相关性眼病24例

目的探讨口服西替利嗪联合雷公藤多苷治疗甲状腺相关性眼病(TAO)的疗效。方法将TAO患者48例随机分为两组,均24例。Ⅰ组给予强的松20 mg,3次/d,连续服用4周后,逐渐减量(每2周减10 mg)。Ⅱ组给予口服西替利嗪10 mg,每晚1次;雷公藤多苷10 mg,3次/d。两组均连续服用12周,比较两组的有效率及治疗前后眼球突出度、临床活动度(CAS)评分变化。结果Ⅰ组有效率与Ⅱ组效果接近,分别为54.17%和50.00%;两组治疗前后眼球突出度值与CAS评分值均有显著性差异(P<0.05)。观察期未发现明显的不良反应。结论口服西替利嗪和雷公藤多苷是治疗TAO的一种安全有效的方法。     

Effect of longterm cetirizine treatment on the cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction in patients with grass pollen allergy

In short-term studies cetirizine effectively reduces the early and late phases of the cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction. The aim of this study was to determine its long-term effects on both the vascular and cellular components of the reaction.The skin blister technique was used to collect inflammatory cells after intradermal administration of grass pollen antigen to 10 atopic volunteers. They were treated for 3 months with 10 mg cetirizine twice daily. Tests were done at baseline, before, and 7, 30 and 90 days after initiation of treatment. Blister fluid containing cells was collected on microscope slides at 6 and 24 hours. The area of induration was measured at 0.25, 1, 6, 10 and 24 h.Cetirizine significantly reduced the peripheral blood eosinophil count at 30 and 90 days (75% and 40% reduction respectively); there was no significant change after only one week's therapy. Eosinophil recruitment to and activation in the area of antigen administration were already maximally reduced after 7 days, namely a reduction of 54, 52 and 59% at 10 h, and of 55, 68 and 66% at 24 h, respectively, at 7, 30 and 90 days. The area of induration was significantly reduced after one week of therapy. There was a general tendency towards an increase in the reduction at 30 and 90 days, which reached significance only at the 24 h observation; there was a 24, 51 and 48% reduction from baseline at, respectively, 7, 30 and 90 days.The data clearly show a progressive reduction of induration as well as of cellular events over time. The maximum effect occurred at 30 days, after which no further reduction was detected up to 90 days.We conclude that this progressive suppression of inflammation is possibly due to the inhibitory effect of cetirizine on the release of cytokines and other mediators of the hypersensitivity reaction.     

Clinical study on cefprozil fine granules]

Cefprozil (CFPZ, BMY-28100), a new non-ester cephem, was administered to 15 pediatric patients with infectious diseases. The patients included 6 boys and 9 girls from 10 months to 11 years old and they were given oral doses of 18.5-41.7 mg/kg/day for 3 to 8 days. Clinical efficacies were excellent in 3 cases and good in 12 cases, hence the total efficacy rate was 100%. Eosinophilia occurred in 1 case as side effect of the drug, but no other side effects were not found during or after the treatment.     

Clinical evaluation of cefpiramide in pediatrics

Clinical studies of cefpiramide (CPM), a newly developed cephem antibiotic, were performed in 10 children with respiratory tract infection in 4 cases, acute enteritis in 2 cases and urinary tract infection in 4 cases aged from 2 months to 10 years and 4 months. CPM was intravenously given to patients at doses of 16 approximately 58 mg/kg/day divided into 3 times for 3 approximately 22 days. Clinical effects were excellent in 6, good in 3 and fair in 1. Bacteriologically, 3 strains of pathogenic organisms (Salmonella C2 group, E. coli and S. faecalis) isolated from the patients were eradicated with the treatment of CPM. No side effect was observed.