塞克硝唑片治疗滴虫阴道炎的随机对照多中心临床研究

【目的】评价口服塞克硝唑片治疗滴虫阴道炎的有效性和安全性。【方法】采用多中心、随机双盲、平行对照设计，入选滴虫阴道炎患者144例，塞克硝唑片组与替硝唑片组各72例，对其临床疗效和滴虫清除率进行比较，并观察用药后不良事件和实验室检查异常的发生情况。【结果】用药后塞克硝唑片组痊愈率和有效率分别为61％和94％；替硝唑片组痊愈率和有效率分别为51％和94％，两组之间比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。塞克硝唑片组滴虫清除率为96％；替硝唑片组滴虫清除率为97％，两组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。144例病例中无不良事件与严重不良事件发生；塞克硝唑片组实验室检查异常发生率为0，替硝唑片组实验室检查异常发生率为4％，两组之间比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。【结论】口服塞克硝唑片治疗滴虫阴道炎安全、有效。     

塞克硝唑治疗滴虫阴道炎84例疗效观察

目的：评价口服塞克硝唑片治疗滴虫阴道炎的有效性和安全性。方法：采用随机双盲、平行对照设计，入选滴虫阴道炎患者84例，塞克硝唑片组与替硝唑片组各42例，对其临床疗效和滴虫清除率进行比较，并观察用药后不良事件和实验室检查异常的发生情况。结果：用药后塞克硝唑片组痊愈率和有效率分别为35．0％和92．5％；替硝唑片组痊愈率和有效率分别为19．5％和92．7％，两组之间比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）塞克硝唑片组滴虫清除率为95．2％；[第一段]     

塞克硝唑与奥硝唑治疗阴道炎的疗效观察

目的观察塞克硝唑分散片与奥硝唑片治疗滴虫性阴道炎的疗效和不良反应。方法入选滴虫阴道炎患者144例,随机分为塞克硝唑分散片组与奥硝唑片组各72例。治疗组采用塞克硝唑分散片口服,对照组采用奥硝唑片口服,疗程均为7d．结果用药后塞克硝唑分散片组痊愈率和有效率（痊愈＋显效）分别为61％和94％;奥硝唑片组痊愈率和有效率分别为51％和94％,2组之间比较X2=O148,P〉0．05,差异无统计学意义。144例病例中无不良反应事件发生。结论塞克硝唑分散片和奥硝唑片均能有效控制滴虫性阴道炎,均可作为治疗滴虫性阴道炎的首选药物。     

奥硝唑与甲硝唑治疗滴虫阴道炎的临床疗效对比分析

目的探讨奥硝唑与甲硝唑治疗滴虫阴道炎的临床疗效,并进行对比分析。方法将2009年6月-2011年9月我科收入的106例患者随机分为治疗组和对照组,分别给予奥硝唑及甲硝唑治疗,记录并作回顾性分析。结果治疗组53例中痊愈33例,有效19例,无效1例;对照组53例中痊愈25例,有效21例,无效7例。结论奥硝唑治疗滴虫阴道炎的疗效较甲硝唑好,值得临床进一步研究及推广应用。     

奥硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎的临床效果观察

目的观察并评价奥硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎的临床效果和安全性。方法我院收治的104例滴虫性阴道炎患者随机分为试验组和对照组,各54例。分别给与奥硝唑和替硝唑栓剂治疗。结果奥硝唑和替硝唑的总有效率分别为98.15%,88.89%,组间比较有显著差异（P〈0.05）;不良反应率分别为9.26%、11.11%,差异无显著性（P〉0.05）。结论奥硝唑对滴虫性阴道炎治疗安全有效,且不良反应少,可以作为滴虫性阴道炎治疗的首选药物。     

奥硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎的临床效果观察

目的观察并评价奥硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎的临床效果和安全性。方法我院收治的104例滴虫性阴道炎患者随机分为试验组和对照组,各54例。分别给与奥硝唑和替硝唑栓剂治疗。结果奥硝唑和替硝唑的总有效率分别为98.15%,88.89%,组间比较有显著差异(P<0.05);不良反应率分别为9.26%、11.11%,差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论奥硝唑对滴虫性阴道炎治疗安全有效,且不良反应少,可以作为滴虫性阴道炎治疗的首选药物。     

奥硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎53例临床观察

目的观察奥硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎的临床疗效和安全性。方法将106例滴虫性阴道炎患者随机分为奥硝唑组和替硝唑组各53例。分别采用奥硝唑和替硝唑口服治疗。结果奥硝唑组和替硝唑组的总有效率分别为100％和86．8％，两组比较差异有显著性（P〈0．05）；奥硝唑组和替硝唑组发生不良反应的比率分别为7．5％（4／53）和24．5％（13／53），两组比较差异也有显著性（P〈0．05）。结论奥硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎安全、有效，不良反应少，可作为该病的首选药物。     

奥硝唑与替硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎的疗效比较

目的观察奥硝唑与替硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎的疗效差异和不良反应。方法将86例滴虫性阴道炎患者随机分为治疗组和对照组各43例。治疗组采用奥硝唑口服,对照组采用替硝唑口服,疗程均为5d。结果①治疗组显效率为88.4%,对照组显效率为67.4%,两者比较,差异有显著性(χ2=5.47,P<0.05)。治疗组和对照组的总有效率均为100%,差异无显著性(P>0.05)。②治疗组和对照组的不良反应发生率分别为9.3%和14.0%,差异无显著性(χ2=0.45,P>0.05)。结论奥硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎的疗效与替硝唑相似。     

替硝唑与奥硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎临床对比

目的比较替硝唑与奥硝唑药物对于滴虫性阴道炎的治疗效果。方法本文中的研究对象为我单位门诊中接收的80例滴虫性阴道炎患者。将此80例患者按随机数字表原则平均分成两组,即对照组与研究组。对照组患者选用替硝唑药物治疗,研究组患者则选用奥硝唑药物治疗,一段时间后,比较两组患者的病情好转情况及并发症的发生情况。结果研究组患者经奥硝唑药物治疗一段时间后的病情好转率为95%,显著高于对照组72.5%,且研究组患者在治疗后的并发症发生率为10%,显著低于对照组32.5%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论奥硝唑可有效治疗滴虫性阴道炎疾病,其治疗效果显著优于替硝唑。     

塞克硝唑片治疗口腔冠周炎的疗效和安全性分析

目的：探讨使用塞克硝唑治疗口腔冠周炎的临床疗效和安全性。方法：对本院口腔科诊治的59例口腔冠周炎并确诊有厌氧菌感染患者进行回顾性的分析,随机分为试验组和对照组两组,试验组给予塞克硝唑治疗,对照组给予替硝唑治疗,分析比较两组的临床疗效、细菌清除率和不良反应。结果：在用药治疗前后,试验组的痊愈率明显高于对照组,比较差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;试验组有效率虽高于对照组,但两组比较差异无统计学意义;对于常见的口腔厌氧菌,塞克硝唑的细菌清除率（55.6%）高于替硝唑（50.0%）,但比较差异无统计学意义;主要厌氧菌药物的MIC测定结果显示,两种药物对口腔主要的厌氧菌均有较强的抗菌作用,而塞克硝唑的体外抗厌氧菌活性稍强于替硝唑;试验组和对照组均有出现不同比例的轻度不良反应,试验组的不良反应发生率低于对照组,但比较差异无统计学意义。结论：塞克硝唑治疗口腔厌氧菌导致的冠周炎疗效良好、确定,对口腔厌氧菌抗菌作用较强,生物耐受性好,安全性高,不良反应发生率小,可作为临床治疗口腔厌氧菌性冠周炎的较佳选择。     

替硝唑治疗滴虫性阴道炎临床疗效观察

观察了国产新药替硝唑与常用的甲硝唑１次顿服治疗滴虫性阴道炎的疗效。结果表明：服药第４天复查滴虫转阴率分别为９４．０％和８８．０％（Ｐ＜０．０５），消除临床症状及明显改善症状率分别为９６．０％和８７．０％（Ｐ＜０．０１）。第８天复查时，替硝唑组滴虫转阴率近１００．０％。疗效优于同法同量的国产甲硝唑。     

阿司可咖胶囊用于镇痛随机对照多中心临床试验

目的：考察阿司可咖胶囊临床镇痛效果和不良反应。方法：采用多中心随机对照试验设计。对照药氨酚待因2号片。设单次给药、1周给药组，分别用于治疗中等程度手术后疼痛和癌痛。镇痛效果判定指标为疼痛强度差、总疼痛强度差、疼痛缓解率、有效率。结果：手术后疼痛单次给药对照试验，阿司可咖胶囊和氨酚待因2号片的总有效率分别为66．6％和74．0％，癌痛治疗一周给药对照试验，总有效率分别为87．5％和75．0％，综合疗效比较两组差异均无显性。两药不良反应有头晕、恶心、呕吐、胃不适、便秘等。结论：阿司可咖胶囊片与氨酚待因2号片基本等效，是安全有效的镇痛药。     

黛力新与刺五加片联合治疗糖尿病患者心理障碍的观察

目的观察糖尿病心理障碍的患者应用黛力新和刺五加片联合治疗的效果。方法选取2004年1月-2006年12月在内分泌科门诊治疗的糖尿病合并心理障碍的患者随机分为四组：黛力新组、刺五加片组、黛力新加刺五加片组和对照组,观察治疗前后症状改善和血糖控制的结果和时间。结果四组病人的抑郁量表评分（SDS）和焦虑量表评分（SAS）较治疗前均有改善,其中对照组较治疗前无显著性差异,黛力新组、刺五加片组和黛力新加刺五加片组与治疗前比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05）,组间比较示黛力新加刺五加片组缓解症状改善所需时间更短,血糖控制更平稳。结论糖尿病心理障碍的患者应用黛力新加刺五加片治疗其症状改善明显,所需时间更短,血糖控制更平稳。     

针刺治疗慢性紧张型头痛随机对照研究

目的观察毫针治疗慢性紧张型头痛的临床疗效。方法应用随机数字表法将研究对象分为治疗组、对照组共纳入50例病人,治疗组27例,对照组23例,完成随访46例。治疗组针刺头部和辨证远端穴位,对照组接受安慰针刺加服艾司唑仑。针刺治疗每周3次,连续治疗4周,艾司唑仑0.5mg每晚睡前服用,连续4周。16周后进行随访。结果治疗组随机分组后第4周、16周时,在头痛天数变化率、头痛天数、头痛时间方面疗效优于对照组(P<0.05),在生活质量改善方面,治疗组仅在2个维度(社会功能、健康状况)得分上优于对照组(P<0.05),在头痛程度、情绪及生活质量等其他6个维度的改善方面组间差异无统计学意义。结论针刺治疗慢性紧张型头痛安全、不良反应小,疗效优于安慰针刺加服小剂量艾司唑仑。     

Effect of Thick-Needle Therapy in Patients with Bell''s Palsy at Recovery Stage: A Multi-center Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: To compare the clinical effects of thick-needle therapy (TNT) and acupuncture therapy(AT) on patients with Bell''s palsy (BP) at the recovery stage. Methods: A total of 146 eligible participants from 3 hospitals in China were randomized into the TNT group (73 cases) and the AT group (73 cases) using a central randomization. Both groups received Western medicine thrice a day for 4 weeks. Moreover, patients in the TNT group received subcutaneous insertion of a thick needle into Shendao (GV 11) acupoint, while patients in the AT group received AT at acupoints of Cuanzhu (BL 2), Yangbai (GB 14), Dicang (ST 4), Xiaguan (ST 7), Jiache (ST 6), Yingxiang (LI 20) and Hegu (LI 4), 4 times a week, for 4 weeks. Both groups received 2 follow-up visits, which were arranged at 1 month and 3 months after treatment, respectively. The primary outcome measure was House-Brackmann Facial Nerve Grading System (HBFNGS) grade. And the clinical recovery rates of both groups were evaluated according to the HBFNGS grades after treatment. The secondary outcome measures included the facial disability index (FDI) and electroneurogram (EnoG). The adverse events were observed and recorded in both groups. Results: Three cases withdrew from the trial, 2 in the TNT group and 1 in the AT group. There was no significant difference in the clinical recovery rates between the TNT and AT groups after 4-week treatment [40.85% (29/71) vs. 34.72% (25/72), P>0.05]. At the 2nd follow-up visit, more patients in the TNT group showed reduced HBFNGS grades than those in the AT group (P<0.01). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in FDI score, EnoG latency and maximum amplitude ratio at all time points (all P>0.05). Conclusion: The clinical effect of TNT was equivalent to that of AT in patients with BP at recovery stage, while the post-treatment effect of TNT was superior to that of AT. (Registration No. ChiCTR-INR-16008409)     

埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎临床分析

目的比较埃索美拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗反流性食管炎(RE)的疗效。方法本文60例随机分为2组,治疗组30例口服埃索美拉唑40 mg,1次/d,连服4周后减量为20 mg,1次/d,连服4周;对照组30例口服奥美拉唑40 mg,1次/d,连服4周后减量20 mg,1次/d,连服4周。均合用莫沙必利5 mg,3次/d。治疗第4、8周分别作症状评价及胃镜评价。结果治疗后两组症状均有明显改善,治疗组疗效高于对照组,有显著差异(P<0.05);治疗8周后胃镜下疗效观察治疗组疗效显著优于对照组(P<0.05)。结论埃索美拉唑治疗RE有效、安全,疗效优于奥美拉唑。     

盐酸二甲双胍缓释片的降糖效能随机对照研究

目的探讨盐酸二甲双胍缓释片治疗2型糖尿病患者的临床效果和安全性。方法以二甲双胍普通片为对照,对76例患者在2家医院进行了6周的随机对照试验研究。分别在基线、疗后2周和疗后6周,随访观测患者体重、血糖、血脂等糖尿病相关指标。结果在整个疗程中,控制了基线水平的混杂后,组间差异除LDL-C试验组比对照组的下降水平要高于对照组外（P〈0．05）,其余指标组间差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。同时组内重复测量表明,HbAlc和LDL-C在整个疗程中均有明显的下降趋势（P〈0．05）,其余指标变化不明显。两组不良反应发生率无显著性差异（P〉0．05）。结论盐酸二甲双胍缓释片在疗效和安全性上和普通片相当,但由于剂型优势,其依从性要高于普通片,因此具有较强的临床推广价值。     

Gabapentin for the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Context.— Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a syndrome of often intractable neuropathic pain following herpes zoster (shingles) that eludes effective treatment in many patients. Objective.— To determine the efficacy and safety of the anticonvulsant drug gabapentin in reducing PHN pain. Design.— Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel design, 8-week trial conducted from August 1996 through July 1997. Setting.— Sixteen US outpatient clinical centers. Participants.— A total of 229 subjects were randomized. Intervention.— A 4-week titration period to a maximum dosage of 3600 mg/d of gabapentin or matching placebo. Treatment was maintained for another 4 weeks at the maximum tolerated dose. Concomitant tricyclic antidepressants and/or narcotics were continued if therapy was stabilized prior to study entry and remained constant throughout the study. Main Outcome Measures.— The primary efficacy measure was change in the average daily pain score based on an 11-point Likert scale (0, no pain; 10, worst possible pain) from baseline week to the final week of therapy. Secondary measures included average daily sleep scores, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Subject Global Impression of Change and investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression of Change, Short Form-36 (SF-36) Quality of Life Questionnaire, and Profile of Mood States (POMS). Safety measures included the frequency and severity of adverse events. Results.— One hundred thirteen patients received gabapentin, and 89 (78.8%) completed the study; 116 received placebo, and 95 (81.9%) completed the study. By intent-to-treat analysis, subjects receiving gabapentin had a statistically significant reduction in average daily pain score from 6.3 to 4.2 points compared with a change from 6.5 to 6.0 points in subjects randomized to receive placebo (P<.001). Secondary measures of pain as well as changes in pain and sleep interference showed improvement with gabapentin (P<.001). Many measures within the SF-36 and POMS also significantly favored gabapentin (P.01). Somnolence, dizziness, ataxia, peripheral edema, and infection were all more frequent in the gabapentin group, but withdrawals were comparable in the 2 groups (15 [13.3%] in the gabapentin group vs 11 [9.5%] in the placebo group). Conclusions.— Gabapentin is effective in the treatment of pain and sleep interference associated with PHN. Mood and quality of life also improve with gabapentin therapy.