兰索拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗消化性溃疡的效果比较

目的 比较兰索拉唑与奥美拉唑分别配合抗生素治疗消化性溃疡的效果.方法 选择内镜确诊的消化性溃疡患者2 286例,按治疗方法不同分为兰索拉唑组1 243例和奥美拉唑组1 043例.奥美拉唑组给予奥美拉唑+克拉霉素+阿莫西林,兰索拉唑组给予兰索拉唑+克拉霉素+阿莫西林.比较两组患者症状改善时间、Hp根除率、不良反应,并评价疗效.结果 兰索拉唑组总有效率为94.12％(1 170/1 243),奥美拉唑组总有效率为84.18％ (878/1 043),两组差异有统计学意义(x2=5.69,P＜0.05).兰索拉唑组各症状改善时间均明显短于奥美拉唑组,差异均有统计学意义(t =4.32、4.12、4.81、4.43,均P＜0.05).兰索拉唑组Hp根除率为91.31％(1 135/1 243),奥美拉唑组为78.43％(818/1043),差异有统计学意义(x2=7.33,P＜0.05).奥美拉唑组不良反应发生率为5.31％ (66/1 243),兰索拉唑组为6.52％(68/1 043),差异无统计学意义(x2 =1.12,P＞0.05).结论 相比奥美拉唑,兰索拉唑配合抗生素治疗消化性溃疡疗效更高,加快症状改善,缩短愈合时间,不良反应少,值得临床推广应用.     

比较兰索拉唑与奥美拉唑分别配合抗生素治疗消化性溃疡的效果与安全性

目的：比较兰索拉唑与奥美拉唑分别配合抗生素治疗消化性溃疡的效果与安全性。方法：将2014年2月～2015年2月100例消化性溃疡患者,随机分为两组,每组50例。对照组采取奥美拉唑、阿莫西林与克拉霉素联合治疗方案,观察组采取兰索拉唑、阿莫西林与克拉霉素联合治疗方案。观察两组治疗效果、Hp根除率以及不良反应。结果：观察组治疗总有效率与Hp根除率分别为96.0%、84.0%,明显高于对照组的78.0和64.0%（P＜0.05）。观察组不良反应发生率为12.0%,与对照组的14.0%对比差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论：在消化性溃疡临床用药中,兰索拉唑联用抗生素方案疗效满意,可有效促进患者恢复,且较少药物不良反应,值得临床推广。     

兰索拉唑三联预防消化性溃疡复发的临床疗效分析

目的探讨兰索拉唑三联治疗消化性溃疡的临床疗效及对复发的影响。方法将126例幽门螺杆菌阳性消化性溃疡患者随机分入兰索拉唑组与奥美拉唑组,给予66例兰索拉唑组患者兰索拉唑、阿莫西林和克拉霉素三联治疗,疗程1周。给予60例奥美拉唑组患者奥美拉唑、阿莫西林和克拉霉素三联治疗,疗程1周。比较两组患者临床疗效、幽门螺杆菌清除率、复发率的差别。结果兰索拉唑组与奥美拉唑组患者治疗总有效率分别为90.9%和73.3%,差别具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;治疗后2周,兰索拉唑组疼痛、返酸及嗳气症状缓解病例显著多于奥美拉唑组（P〈0.05）;兰索拉唑组幽门螺杆菌清除率显著高于对照组（P〈0.05）,而复发率显著低于奥美拉唑组（P〈0.05）。结论兰索拉唑三联治疗消化性溃疡临床疗效显著优于奥美拉唑三联疗法,可减少复发,改善患者预后。     

兰索拉唑治疗100例消化性溃疡疗效分析

目的:探讨临床应用兰索拉唑治疗消化性溃疡的疗效与价值。方法:选取我院2010年3月～2012年11月收治的以消化性溃疡就诊的患者100例,分为实验组和对照组,两组在给予常规阿莫西林和克拉霉素抗炎治疗一周后,再给予对照组奥美拉唑治疗,实验组兰索拉唑治疗,均治疗3周。治疗结束后对两组患者临床疗效进行对比分析。结果:实验组溃疡愈合总有效率97.3%,对照组溃疡愈合率77.3%,差别具有统计学意义(P<0.05);实验组幽门螺杆菌清除率92.0%,对照组幽门螺杆菌清除率88.0%,差别无统计学意义(P>0.05);实验组不良反应发生率13.3%,对照组不良反应发生率26.7%,差别具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:临床应用兰索拉唑治疗消化性溃疡效果显著,幽门螺杆菌清除率增高,不良反应发生率明显降低,值得临床推广应用。     

序贯疗法根除幽门螺杆菌的临床疗效分析

目的比较由兰索拉唑、阿莫西林、克拉霉素、呋喃唑酮组成的10d序贯疗法与传统三联疗法根除幽门螺杆菌(Hp)的疗效。方法将经胃镜检查确诊为有明显异常的慢性胃炎和消化性溃疡且Hp阳性的患者55例随机分组,治疗组(28例)方案为前5d兰索拉唑、阿莫西林,后5d兰索拉唑+克拉霉素+呋喃唑酮;对照组(27例)三联疗法为兰索拉唑+阿莫西林+克拉霉素,疗程7d。结果治疗组根除幽门螺杆菌Hp的成功率为92.9%,对照组根除幽门螺杆菌Hp的成功率为70.4%,这两组数据之间的差异经过统一,有重要的参考意义(P<0.05)。结论以兰索拉唑、阿莫西林、克拉霉素、呋喃唑酮组成的10d序贯疗法治疗Hp感染具有疗效高、不良反应低,依从性好之特点。     

雷贝拉唑、兰索拉唑与奥美拉唑不同用药方案治疗消化性溃疡的疗效观察

目的探讨雷贝拉唑、兰索拉唑、奥美拉唑3种不同药物治疗消化性溃疡的临床疗效。方法将135例消化性溃疡患者随机分为雷贝拉唑组、兰索拉唑组、奥美拉唑组,3组分别给予雷贝拉唑、兰索拉唑、奥美拉唑治疗,同时给予甲硝唑片+阿莫西林治疗,对比分析3组患者的临床疗效及治疗成本。结果雷贝拉唑组、兰索拉唑组、奥美拉唑组的总有效率分别为95.56%、93.33%、91.11%,幽门螺杆菌清除清除率分别为93.33%、91.11%、88.89%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);3组患者药物总成本分别为391.23元、816.48元、412.51元,差异存在统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论雷贝拉唑、兰索拉唑与奥美拉唑治疗消化性溃疡,均取得理想的疗效,但雷贝拉唑与奥美拉唑的治疗成本低于兰索拉唑。     

兰索拉唑、法莫替丁治疗Hp阳性消化性溃疡疗效比较

目的观察兰索拉唑、法莫替丁根除幽门螺旋杆菌（Hp）阳性消化性溃疡的临床疗效。方法将Hp检测阳性、内镜检查为活动期消化性溃疡的122例患者分为两组,观察组予以兰索拉唑、阿莫西林、克拉霉素,连续服用l周,再单独服兰索拉唑3周,对照组予以法莫替丁、阿莫西林、克拉霉素连续服用l周,再单独服法莫替丁3周。停药1个月后,复查胃镜并进行14C呼气试验,观察Hp感染是否根除及溃疡的愈合情况。结果观察组和对照组的Hp根除率分别为96.7%和86.9%,溃疡愈合率分别为96.7%和85.3%,两组根除率、愈合率差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论以兰索拉唑为核心的三联疗法治疗Hp阳性消化性溃疡是比较理想的治疗方案。     

小儿消化性溃疡的不同药物治疗方法对比分析

目的:以三联疗法为研究视角探讨小儿消化性溃疡的药物治疗方法及疗效差异.方法:选取2014年5月~2015年4月我院收治的100例消化性溃疡患儿临床资料,随机分为观察组和对照组各50例,观察组采用基于奥美拉唑(+阿莫西林+克拉霉素)三联疗法治疗,对照组则采用雷贝拉唑+阿莫西林+克拉霉素的三联疗法,评价临床疗效及不良反应.结果:观察组Hp根除率86.0%、不良反应发生率4.0%,优于对照组的74.0%和10.0%(P<0.05).两组临床疗效对比无显著差异(P>0.05).结论:①小儿消化性溃疡药物治疗方案较多,基于奥美拉唑的三联疗法与雷贝拉唑的三联疗法均有良好的效果;②奥美拉唑+阿莫西林+克拉霉素联合用药不良反应较少,更适合消化性溃疡患儿.     

克拉霉素为主的三联疗法治疗小儿幽门螺旋杆菌阳性消化性溃疡的效果评价

目的评价克拉霉素为主的三联疗法治疗小儿幽门螺旋杆菌(Hp)阳性消化性溃疡的疗效,为临床治疗小儿Hp阳性消化性溃疡提供依据。方法选取120例Hp阳性消化性溃疡患儿进行研究,选择2016年4月~2017年4月到我院儿科就诊患儿,随机将患儿分为两组,即治疗组60例采用克拉霉素、奥美拉唑、阿莫西林三联疗法治疗,对照组60例采用甲硝唑、阿莫西林、奥美拉唑三联疗法治疗,对两组患儿的临床疗效、Hp根除率、不良反应进行对比分析。结果与治疗组比较,对照组的总有效率明显更低,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);与对照组比较,治疗组的Hp清除率更高,药物不良反应率更低,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论临床治疗小儿Hp阳性消化性溃疡可采用克拉霉素为主的三联疗法效果显著,在Hp清除率、不良反应方面的优势均优于奥美拉唑为主的三联疗法。     

兰索拉唑治疗Hp阳性上消化性溃疡疗效研究

目的研究以兰索拉唑为核心的三联疗法对上消化道溃疡的临床疗效。方法将145例患者随机分为兰索拉唑组、奥美拉唑组、法莫替丁组。兰索拉唑组口服兰索拉唑30mg、克拉霉素0.5g、左氧氟沙星0.2g,奥美拉唑组口服奥美拉唑30mg、克拉霉素0.5g、左氧氟沙星0.2g,法莫替丁组口服法莫替丁30mg、克拉霉素0.5g、左氧氟沙星0.2g。结果兰索拉唑组总有效率94.3%,Hp根治率分90.56%,不良反应发生率为11.32%,疗效高于奥美拉唑及兰索拉唑对照组而不良反应低于这两组(P<0.05)。结论是目前治疗幽门螺杆菌阳性之消化性溃疡的理想方案,值得临床推广。     

兰索拉唑治疗消化性溃疡54例疗效分析

目的：探讨兰索拉唑片治疗消化性溃疡的临床疗效。方法：将108例消化性溃疡患者随机分为治疗组和对照组各54例,治疗组应用兰索拉唑,对照组应用奥美拉唑,并同时服用阿莫西林和克拉霉素进行治疗,观察并比较两组的临床疗效。结果：治疗组治疗1周时症状缓解情况明显优于对照组,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;治疗结束后,两组患者溃疡愈合与Hp根除率等,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论：兰索拉唑治疗消化性溃疡止痛效应快,临床效果好。     

兰索拉唑治疗消化系统溃疡的临床效果及不良反应观察

目的 观察兰索拉唑治疗消化系统溃疡的临床效果及不良反应.方法 选取本院2011年11月～2012年12月收治的86例消化系统溃疡患者,将其分成治疗组（43例）和对照组（43例）.治疗组患者采用兰索拉唑治疗,对照组患者采用奥美拉唑治疗,对比两组患者的治疗效果及不良反应发生率.结果 治疗组患者的总有效率为93.02％,幽门螺杆菌根除率为90.70％;对照组患者的总有效率为76.74％,幽门螺杆菌根除率为67.44％,两组间比较,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.两组患者不良反应发生率均为2.33％,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.结论 兰索拉唑治疗消化系统溃疡效果良好,不良反应较低,值得推广应用.     

雷尼替丁枸橼酸铋联合克拉霉素根除幽门螺杆菌疗效观察

目的 比较雷尼替丁枸橼酸铋联合克拉霉素与奥美拉唑、甲硝唑、克拉霉素两种疗法对幽门螺杆菌（Hp）的根除效果。方法 123例Hp阳性的消化性溃疡患者分为2组：A组62例，以雷尼替丁枸橼酸铋1片（含：雷尼替丁100mg，枸橼酸铋钾110mg）、克拉霉素250mg口服，2次／d，疗程7d；B组61例，以奥美拉唑20mg、克拉霉素250mg加甲硝唑400mg口服，2次／d，疗程7d。结果 A、B两组的Hp根除率分别为86．9％和85．2％，活动期溃疡愈合率分别为97．6％和100％，副反应发生率分别为6．6％和8．2％，两组间Hp根除率、活动期溃疡愈合率和副反应发生率差异均无显著性（均P〉0．05）。结论 雷尼替丁枸橼酸铋联合克拉霉素与奥美拉唑、甲硝唑、克拉霉素两种疗法疗效相当，而雷尼替丁枸橼酸铋联合克拉霉素因价廉、安全在临床上更为实用。     

左氧氟沙星三联疗法治疗幽门螺旋杆菌相关性消化性溃疡的疗效观察

目的评价左氧氟沙星三联疗法根除幽门螺杆菌(Helicobacter pylori,HP)感染及治疗消化性溃疡的疗效。方法选择420例HP阳性消化性溃疡患者,随机分为治疗组,给予兰索拉唑(lansoprazole,L)30 mg,左氧氟沙星(Levofloxacin,L)500 mg,阿莫西林(Amoxicillin,A)1000 mg,2次/d,10 d为1个疗程。对照组,给予兰索拉唑30 mg,克拉霉素(Clarithromycin,C)500 mg,阿莫西林1000 mg,2次/d,10d为1个疗程。疗程结束后30 d后复查胃镜及Hp。结果治疗组和对照组Hp根除率各为93.3%,88.8%(P>0.05),溃疡愈合率分别为89.2%,84.4%。结论左旋氧氟沙星联合兰索拉唑和阿莫西林是一种安全、疗效高、耐受性好的治疗Hp感染的方案。     

雷贝拉唑三联疗法治疗消化性溃疡的疗效观察

目的观察雷贝拉唑三联疗法治疗消化性溃疡的临床疗效。方法将92例消化性溃疡患者随机分为治疗组和对照组各46例。治疗组先给予雷贝拉唑10mg、阿莫西林1.0g、克拉霉素500mg;对照组先给予奥美拉唑20mg、阿莫西林1.0g、克拉霉素500mg,2组均每天2次,饭前1h服用,连服7d。然后治疗组单独给予雷贝拉唑10mg,对照组单纯给予奥美拉唑20mg,2组均每天1次,连服7d。治疗后比较2组溃疡愈合率、幽门螺杆菌(Hp)根除率,并观察2组不良反应发生情况。结果治疗组溃疡愈合率为91.30%高于对照组的60.04%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。2组不良反应均轻微,可自行消失。结论雷贝拉唑三联疗法是一种短程、高效、安全的根除Hp及促进溃疡愈合的方案。     

Lansoprazole: an update of its place in the management of acid-related disorders

Lansoprazole is an inhibitor of gastric acid secretion and also exhibits antibacterial activity against Helicobacter pylori in vitro. Current therapy for peptic ulcer disease focuses on the eradication of H. pylori infection with maintenance therapy indicated in those patients who are not cured of H. pylori and those with ulcers resistant to healing. Lansoprazole 30 mg combined with amoxicillin 1g, clarithromycin 250 or 500mg, or metronidazole 400 mg twice daily was associated with eradication rates ranging from 71 to 94%, and ulcer healing rates were generally >80% in well designed studies. In addition, it was as effective as omeprazole- or rabeprazole-based regimens which included these antimicrobial agents. Maintenance therapy with lansoprazole 30 mg/day was significantly more effective than either placebo or ranitidine in preventing ulcer relapse. Importantly, preliminary data suggest that lansoprazole-based eradication therapy is effective in children and the elderly. In the short-term treatment of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), lansoprazole 15, 30 or 60 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo, ranitidine 300 mg/day or cisapride 40 mg/day and similar in efficacy to pantoprazole 40 mg/day in terms of healing of oesophagitis. Lansoprazole 30 mg/day, omeprazole 20 mg/day and pantoprazole 40 mg/day all provided similar symptom relief in these patients. In patients with healed oesophagitis. 12-month maintenance therapy with lansoprazole 15 or 30 mg/day prevented recurrence and was similar to or more effective than omeprazole 10 or 20 mg/day. Available data in patients with NSAID-related disorders or acid-related dyspepsia suggest that lansoprazole is effective in these patients in terms of the prevention of NSAID-related gastrointestinal complications, ulcer healing and symptom relief. Meta-analytic data and postmarketing surveillance in >30,000 patients indicate that lansoprazole is well tolerated both as monotherapy and in combination with antimicrobial agents. After lansoprazole monotherapy commonly reported adverse events included dose-dependent diarrhoea, nausea/vomiting, headache and abdominal pain. After short-term treatment in patients with peptic ulcer, GORD, dyspepsia and gastritis the incidence of adverse events associated with lansoprazole was generally < or = 5%. Similar adverse events were seen in long-term trials, although the incidence was generally higher (< or = 10%). When lansoprazole was administered in combination with amoxicillin, clarithromycin or metronidazole adverse events included diarrhoea, headache and taste disturbance. In conclusion, lansoprazole-based triple therapy is an effective treatment option for the eradication of H. pylori infection in patients with peptic ulcer disease. Preliminary data suggest it may have an important role in the management of this infection in children and the elderly. In the short-term management of GORD, lansoprazole monotherapy offers a more effective alternative to histamine H2-receptor antagonists and initial data indicate that it is an effective short-term treatment option in children and adolescents. In adults lansoprazole maintenance therapy is also an established treatment option for the long-term management of this chronic disease. Lansoprazole has a role in the treatment and prevention of NSAID-related ulcers and the treatment of acid-related dyspepsia; however, further studies are needed to confirm its place in these indications. Lansoprazole has emerged as a useful and well tolerated treatment option in the management of acid-related disorders.     

Lansoprazole: pharmacokinetics,pharmacodynamics and clinical uses

Lansoprazole (Prevacid?, TAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) is a substituted benzimidazole that inhibits gastric acid secretion. This agent is approved for the short-term treatment of erosive reflux oesophagitis, active gastric ulcer, active duodenal ulcer and the treatment of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastric and duodenal ulcers. It is also approved for the long-term treatment of healed reflux oesophagitis, healed duodenal ulcer, the treatment of hypersecretory conditions such as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and the eradication of Helicobacter pylori as a component of triple therapy with lansoprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin, or dual therapy with lansoprazole and amoxicillin. Its mechanism of action is to selectively inhibit the membrane enzyme H⁺/K⁺ATPase in gastric parietal cells. In clinical trials, lansoprazole is more effective than placebo or histamine (H₂)-receptor antagonists in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. Lansoprazole administered at a dose of 30 mg daily produced faster relief of symptoms and superior healing rates in patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers or reflux oesophagitis than H₂-receptor antagonists. A daily dose of 30 mg lansoprazole reduced epigastric pain faster than omeprazole 20 mg daily in patients with peptic ulcer disease but healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks were similar with both agents at these dosages. Lansoprazole was more effective than H₂-receptor antagonists in patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and produced similar treatment outcome to omeprazole. Lansoprazole in combination with clarithromycin and amoxicillin produced similar rates of eradication of H. pylori. In clinical trials, lansoprazole is well-tolerated and has a low frequency of side effects similar to that of H₂-receptor antagonists or omeprazole.     

兰索拉唑三联疗法治疗上消化道溃疡54例临床分析

目的:探讨兰索拉唑三联疗法治疗上消化道溃疡的效果分析和安全性.方法:将108例患者随机分为兰索拉唑治疗组和对照组各54例,治疗组采用兰索拉唑30 mg+左氧氟沙星0.2 g+克拉霉素0.5 g三联治疗,对照组采用法莫替丁20 mg+左氧氟沙星0.2 g+克拉霉素0.5 g三联治疗,并比较治疗效果及对Hp的根除情况.结果...     

Lansoprazole: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and clinical uses

Lansoprazole (Prevacid, TAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) is a substituted benzimidazole that inhibits gastric acid secretion. This agent is approved for the short-term treatment of erosive reflux oesophagitis, active gastric ulcer, active duodenal ulcer and the treatment of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastric and duodenal ulcers. It is also approved for the long-term treatment of healed reflux oesophagitis, healed duodenal ulcer, the treatment of hypersecretory conditions such as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and the eradication of Helicobacter pylori as a component of triple therapy with lansoprazole, clarithromycin and amoxicillin, or dual therapy with lansoprazole and amoxicillin. Its mechanism of action is to selectively inhibit the membrane enzyme H+/K+ ATPase in gastric parietal cells. In clinical trials, lansoprazole is more effective than placebo or histamine (H2)-receptor antagonists in the treatment of reflux oesophagitis. Lansoprazole administered at a dose of 30 mg daily produced faster relief of symptoms and superior healing rates in patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers or reflux oesophagitis than H2-receptor antagonists. A daily dose of 30 mg lansoprazole reduced epigastric pain faster than omeprazole 20 mg daily in patients with peptic ulcer disease but healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks were similar with both agents at these dosages. Lansoprazole was more effective than H2-receptor antagonists in patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and produced similar treatment outcome to omeprazole. Lansoprazole in combination with clarithromycin and amoxicillin produced similar rates of eradication of H. pylori. In clinical trials, lansoprazole is well-tolerated and has a low frequency of side effects similar to that of H2-receptor antagonists or omeprazole.