埃索美拉唑三联疗法治疗幽门螺杆菌阳性消化性溃疡疗效观察

100例符合条件的患者随机分为两组,治疗组50例应用埃索美拉唑+甲硝唑+克拉霉素三联疗法治疗;对照组50例应用奥美拉唑+甲硝唑+克拉霉素三联疗法治疗。治疗前、治疗4周后均进行胃镜和Hp检查,评价疗效。结果治疗组与对照组溃疡愈合率分别为92%和90%,两组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗组和对照组第1d腹痛缓解率分别为48%和26%,Hp根除率分别为90.0%和70%,两组间差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。     

埃索美拉唑等四联疗法治疗难治性消化性溃疡疗效分析

目的：探讨以埃索美拉唑为基础的四联疗法治疗难治性消化性溃疡临床疗效。方法将126例难治性消化性溃疡患者随机分入对照组与观察组,对照组患者接受埃索美啦唑、阿莫西林及克拉霉素三联治疗,疗程4周。观察组患者接受埃索美拉唑、羟氨苄青霉素、克拉霉素及胶体果胶铋四联疗法治疗,治疗1周后停用羟氨苄青霉素及克拉霉素,埃索美拉唑及胶体果胶铋继续应用3周。比较两组临床疗效、胃镜下疗效、幽门螺杆菌（Hp）根除率及临床症状缓解率。结果观察组临床治疗有效率及胃镜下治疗有效率分别为96.9%和96.9%,显著优于对照组79.0%和77.4%（P〈0.05）;观察组与对照组Hp根除率分别为95.3%和74.2%,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;观察组腹痛、烧心缓解率显著优于对照组（P〈0.05）,两组反酸及腹胀缓解率未见显著差别（P〉0.05）。结论以埃索美拉唑为基础的四联疗法治疗难治性消化性溃疡临床疗效理想,Hp根除率高。     

埃索美拉唑三联治疗Hp阳性消化性溃疡的临床疗效观察

目的观察埃索美拉唑三联疗法对幽门螺杆菌（Hp）阳性的消化性溃疡的疗效。方法80例符合条件的患者随机分为两组,治疗组40例,应用埃索美拉唑＋甲硝唑＋克拉霉素三联1周,之后埃索美拉唑3周疗法;对照组40例,应用洛赛克＋甲硝唑＋克拉霉素三联1周,之后洛赛克3周疗法。治疗前、治疗4周后均进行胃镜和Hp检查,评价疗效。结果治疗组与对照组溃疡愈合率分别为95．0％和92．5％,两组间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;Hp根除率分别为90．O％和72．5％,两组间差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论埃索美拉唑三联可作为Hp感染的消化性溃疡的首选疗法。     

埃索美拉唑在消化性溃疡中的应用现状

埃索美拉唑是新一代质子泵抑制剂成员,有较强的抑制胃酸分泌效应。本文就埃索美拉唑在消化性溃疡的应用进展进行综述。     

埃索美拉唑与艾普拉唑治疗消化性溃疡的临床对比研究

目的比较埃索美拉唑与艾普拉唑治疗消化性溃疡的临床疗效及不良反应。方法选取2013年3月至2014年2月接受埃索美拉唑与艾普拉唑治疗的87例消化道溃疡患者,随机分为A组44例和B组43例。其中,A组患者给予埃索美拉唑肠溶片20 mg,1次/d,口服,疗程4周;B组患者给予艾普拉唑肠溶胶囊,10 mg,1次/d,口服,疗程4周。比较两组的临床效果与不良反应。结果 A组和B组的溃疡愈合率分别为95.5%和83.7%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),总有效率分别为97.7%和95.3%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。A、B两组3 d内和1周内疼痛消失率比较差异均无统计学意义(84.1%vs 81.4%,P>0.05;97.7%vs 93.0%,P>0.05)。两组不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(2.3%vs 4.6%,P>0.05)。结论埃索美拉唑治疗消化性溃疡的愈合率优于艾普拉唑,两者治疗的总有效率无差异,且不良反应少而轻微。     

埃索美拉唑三联疗法治疗消化性溃疡73例疗效观察

目的观察埃索美拉唑三联疗法治疗消化性溃疡73例疗效。方法143例消化性溃疡患者随机分成治疗组73例应用埃索美拉唑20mg,1次／d口服,疗程4周,阿莫西林1．0g,2次／d口服,克拉霉素0．5g,2次／d口服,疗程1周。对照组70例应用埃索美拉唑20mg,1次／dVI服,疗程4周。结果两组溃疡愈合率均达100％,治疗组H．pylori清除率95％,对照组19％;随诊所有患者治疗组2个月溃疡复发率1％,一年复发率5％,对照组为33％、54％;无药物不良反应。结论埃索美拉唑三联疗法疗程短、高效、依从性好,无药物不良反应,使用方便,溃疡复发率低。     

埃索美拉唑根除幽门螺杆菌的Meta分析

目的:综合评价基于埃索美拉唑的三联疗法根除幽门螺杆菌(Hp)的作用。方法:对全世界基于埃索美拉唑的三联疗法根除Hp并以其他质子泵抑制剂以及自身不同剂量作为对照的的随机对照试验(RCT)进行Meta分析。结果:有8项RCT比较了基于埃索美拉唑和奥美拉唑的三联疗法的Hp根除率,有2项研究比较了埃索美拉唑80mg/d与40mg/d的Hp根除率。基于意向治疗分析的结果显示,试验组Hp根除率为84.8%,对照组为82.0%,差异无统计学意义(OR1.24,95%CI:0.96～1.60,P=0.10)。基于按符合方案集分析的结果显示试验组Hp根除率为88.0%,对照组为85.1%,差异无统计学意义(OR1.30,95%CI:0.97～1.74,P=0.07)。分别对高质量研究和疾病谱为十二指肠溃疡的研究进行分析,两组Hp根除率无统计学差异。对疾病谱为消化不良的研究进行分析,按符合方案集分析显示试验组Hp根除率显著高于对照组(P=0.02),但意向治疗分析未显示统计学差异(P=0.06)。埃索美拉唑剂量分别为80mg/d与40mg/d的两组的Hp根除率无统计学差异。结论:基于埃索美拉唑的三联疗法能有效清除Hp感染,但并不...     

埃索美拉唑三联疗法治疗Hp阳性消化性溃疡的疗效分析——附68例报告

目的比较埃索美拉唑三联疗法与奥美拉唑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.方法将136例确诊为Hp阳性的消化性溃疡患者随机分为埃索美拉唑组和奥美拉唑组,每组各68例.埃索美拉唑组给予埃索美拉唑20 mg、阿莫西林1.0 g、克拉霉素0.5 g,均为每日2次.奥美拉唑组给予奥美拉唑20 mg、阿莫西林1.0 g、克拉霉素0.5 g,均为每日2次.7日后再分别予埃索美拉唑20 mg或奥美拉唑20 mg,每日1次,同时加用铝碳酸镁片1.5 g,3次/日,维持治疗3周.2组患者在治疗前和治疗4周后检测Hp感染状况.结果埃索美拉唑组和奥美拉唑组的Hp总根除率为91%、88%,溃疡愈合率也为91%、88%,2组比较差异均无统计学意义(均为P＞0.05);埃索美拉唑组第1日和第2日的腹痛缓解率分别为35%和60%,高于奥美拉唑组的17%和34%(均为P＜0.05).结论埃索美拉唑三联疗法治疗Hp阳性消化性溃疡的疗效略优于奥美拉唑三联疗法,腹痛较快得以缓解,值得临床酌情选用.     

埃索美拉唑三联疗法根除幽门螺杆菌疗效观察

幽门螺杆菌（Hp）是消化性溃疡、慢性胃炎及胃黏膜相关淋巴组织样淋巴瘤的主要致病因素之一，与胃癌的发生有密切关系，彻底根除Hp感染可促进消化性溃疡的愈合及预防复发。本研究旨在比较埃索美拉唑为主的短程三联疗法治疗Hp相关性十二指肠溃疡的疗效及对Hp的根除。     

A randomized comparison of triple therapy Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens in children with peptic ulcers

An open, randomized trial was performed to compare the efficacy of three Helicobacter pylori eradication regimens in children with peptic ulcer disease. A total of 106 children (5 - 15 years) were treated for 1 week with metronidazole, 30 - 40 mg/kg per day depending on age, amoxycillin, 750 mg/day, and one of three anti-secretory agents: proprietary omeprazole, 20 - 40 mg/day depending on age; generic omeprazole, 20 - 40 mg/day; or ranitidine, 150 mg twice daily. The H. pylori eradication rate was significantly higher in patients receiving proprietary omeprazole (88.9%) than in those receiving generic omeprazole (80.0%) or ranitidine (74.3%), and this was associated with a trend towards faster ulcer healing. It is concluded that triple therapy consisting of an anti-secretory agent and two antimicrobials produces effective eradication of H. pylori and ulcer healing in children with peptic ulcer disease, and that proprietary omeprazole is more effective than both ranitidine and the generic formulation used in this study.     

Meta-analysis of proton pump inhibitors in treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared with placebo and histamine receptor antagonists (H2RAs) for reducing the incidence of rebleeding, surgery, and death in acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) associated with peptic ulcer disease. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of the English-language literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Pre-MEDLINE (from 1966 to September 2000) and a manual search of references. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials evaluating any PPI for acute GIB in adults with the end points of rebleeding, surgery of death. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine trials (1829 pts.) were included. The relative odds of rebleeding indicated a 50% reduction in the PPI-treated group (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.77; p = 0.002, NNTB 9; 95% CI NNTB 6 to 13). The relative odds of surgery indicated a 53% reduction in the PPI-treated group (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.77; p = 0.003; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 35). The relative odds for mortality indicated a nonsignificant 8% decrease in the odds of death in the PPI-treated group (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.83, p = 0.81; NNTB 323, 95% CI NNTB 47 to infinity to NNTH 33). CONCLUSIONS: PPIs are superior to H2RAs and placebo in preventing rebleeding and the need for surgery in patients with GIB, although they do not appear to reduce mortality.