丽珠胃三联加达克普隆根除幽门螺杆菌(HP)疗效观察

将190例HP感染病人分为两组，观察组（1）94例给丽珠胃三联4片2／d 达克普隆30mg1/d，对照组（1）96例给丽珠得乐0．22＋阿莫西林1．0＋瑞贝克80mg 雷尼替丁0．152／d，疗程均7d，停药1月后复查尿素酶试验及病理切片两者均阴性称根除，根除失败者互换治疗方案称观察组（2）及对照组（2），结果表明观察总组共123例根除112例，根除率91．1％，对照总组共105例根除74例，根除率70．5％，无发现严重药物副作用，两组比较有显著差异（P＜0．01），两组一般副作用分别为14．6％和17．2％比较无差异。     

培菲康治疗肝源性腹泻40例

目的：探讨培菲康治疗肝源性腹泻的疗效。方法：将78例肝病患者随机分为两组，对照组给予丽珠肠乐及综合治疗，治疗组在综合治疗基础上给予培菲康口服。结果：治疗组有效率92．5％，对照组有效率63．2％，两组相比差异有显著性（P＜0．01），两组腹泻缓解时间相比差异有显著性（P＜0．01）。结论：培菲康治疗肝源性腹泻，效果明显。     

疣脱欣加抗病毒药联合治疗尖锐湿疣68例疗效观察

目的：观察疣脱欣加干扰素和丽珠威治疗尖锐湿疣的疗效。方法：以疣脱欣加干扰素，丽珠威治疗尖锐湿疣68例为治疗组与足叶草酯单纯治疗尖锐湿疣50例对照组进行对比观察，结果：治疗组随访6个月的有总有效率为76．5％，与对照组比较，差异有显著性意义（P＜0．01），结论：疣脱 加干扰素，丽珠威联合治疗尖锐湿疣疗效高，复发率低。     

丽珠胃三联加达克普隆根除幽门螺杆菌(HP)疗效观察

观察丽珠胃三联加达克普隆根除HP疗效，探索根除HP最佳方案。方法 将190例HP感染患者分为两组，观察组94例给丽珠胃三联4片（2次／日）＋达克普隆30mg（1次／日）；对照组96例给丽珠得乐0．22g＋阿莫西林1．0g＋瑞贝克80mg＋雷尼替丁0．15g，2次／日；两组疗程均7天。停药1个月复查尿素酶试验及病理切片两者均阴性称根除。无效者互换治疗方案。结果：观察总组共123例，根除112例，根除率91．06％； 对照总组共105例，根除74例，根除率70．48％；未发现严重药物副作用，两组比较有显著差异（P＜0．01）。两组一般副作用分别为14．63％和15．2％，两组比较无显著性差异。结论 丽珠胃三联加达克普隆1周疗法根除HP疗效高，疗程短，无严重14．63％和15．2％，两组比较无显著性差异。结论 丽珠胃三联加达克普隆1周疗法根除HP疗效高，疗程短，无严重副作用，依从性好，值得经济条件好的地区作为首选方案；主张联合用药根除HP，避免选用患者可能耐药的抗菌素。     

使用洛活喜和洛汀新治疗160例高血压疗效观察

目的 观察丽珠胃三联加达克普隆根除HP疗效，探索根除HP最佳方案。方法 将190例HP感染患者分为两组，观察组94例给丽珠胃三联4片（2次／日）＋达克普隆30mg（1次／日）；对照组96例给丽珠得乐0．22g＋阿莫西林1．0g＋瑞贝克80mg＋雷尼替丁0．15g，2次／日；两组疗程均7天。停药1个月后复查尿酶试验及病理切片两者均阴性称根除。无效者互换治疗方案。结果：观察总组共123例，根除112例，根除率91．06％；对照总组共105例，根除74例，根除率70．48％；未发现严重药物副作用，两组比较有显著差异（P＜0．01）。两组一般副作用分别为14．63％和15．2％，两组比较无显著性差异。结论 丽珠胃三联加达克普隆1周疗法根除HP疗效高，疗程短，无严重副作用，依从性好，值得经济条件好的地区作为首选方案；主张联合用药根除HP，避免选用患者可能耐药的抗菌素。     

两种方法治疗帕金森病的效果比较

目的：比较两种方法治疗帕金森病的临床效果。方法选取帕金森病患者80例,采用数字表法对其进行随机分为美多巴单纯西药治疗（对照组）40例和美多巴联合中药治疗（观察组）40例;观察两组疗效及治疗前后帕金森病睡眠量表（ PDSS）、Epworth嗜睡量表（ ESS）、汉密尔顿抑郁评价量表（ HAMD）、视觉模拟评分法（saaagesae,VAS）评分及Barthel Index指数（BI）。结果对照组、观察组治疗前PDSS评分（122．5±16．5）分、（125．7±17．0）分,明显低于治疗后的（138．5±16．4）分、（135．0±15．0）分（ t＝3．45、4．01,均P＜0.05）;HAMD评分（13．0±7．0）分、（13．5±18．5）分,明显高于治疗后的（7．5±3．2）分、（7．4±5．0）分（ t＝2.41、2．31,均P＜0．05）;ESS评分（8．8±2．2）分、（9．0±2．5）分均高于治疗后的（7．2±2．3）分、（7．2±2．0）分（t＝2．22、2．25,均P＜0．05）;BI指数（25．44±9．11）、（25．99±9．55）,明显低于治疗后的（60．11±9.85）、（61．22±9．99）（t＝4．01、4．03,均P＜0．05）;观察组治疗后有效率87．5％,高于对照组的70．0％（χ^2=13．25,P＜0．05）;观察组不良反应5例（12．5％）,明显低于对照组的10例（25．0％）（χ^2=16．21,P＜0.05）。结论美多巴联合中药治疗帕金森病是一种安全、有效的治疗手段,其效果较单纯西医治疗更佳。     

药物治疗合并幽门螺杆菌感染的疣状胃炎疗效观察

目的 观察呋哺唑酮治疗合并幽门螺杆菌（Hp）感染的疣状性胃炎的疗效。方法 将合并Hp感染的疣状胃炎（经内镜及活检确诊）患者共48例随机分为治疗组和对照组（各24例），皆接受根治Hp的四联疗法，即口服奥美拉唑、甲硝唑片、阿莫仙胶囊、丽珠得乐胶囊，治疗10d后．治疗组给予奥美拉唑、呋喃唑酮、丽珠得乐、维生素B6治疗20d，对照组给予奥美拉唑、丽珠得乐治疗20d。疗程结束3个月后再行内镜及快速尿素酶Hp检查。结果 治疗组中Hp的根治率为95．7％，而对照组为70．3％（P〈0．05）；痘疹治愈率治疗组为65．2％，对照组为16．7％（P〈0．01）；痘疹的好转率治疗组为83．3％，对照组为41．7％（P〈0．01）。结论呋喃唑酮治疗疣状胃炎有较好疗效，并能提高Hp的根治率。     

丽珠肠乐和西沙比利联用治疗习惯性便秘随机对照试验

目的：探讨丽珠肠乐、西沙比利联用治疗习惯性便秘的疗效和安全性。方法：将128例习惯性便秘患者随机分为：A组48例，为丽珠肠乐、西沙比利联用治疗组；B组42例，为丽珠肠乐组；C组38例，为大黄苏打片组。观察近期疗效、远期复发率和副作用。结果：近期疗效：A组治愈率87．5％；B组治愈率80．95％；C组治愈率76．32％。三组互相比较P＞0．05。6个月后远期总复率：A组9．52％，B组29．42％，C组89．56％，A组与B组比P＜0．05，B组与C组比P＜0．01，A组与C组比P＜0．01。结论：近期疗效，丽珠肠乐、西沙比利无论合用、单用，都与服用大黄苏打片差异显著。远期复发率三组之间差异显著，丽珠肠乐与西沙比利联用组复发率最低。     

丽珠赛乐治疗新生儿缺氧缺血性脑病疗效观察

应用丽珠赛乐（国产脑活素）对30例新生地缺氧缺血性脑病（HIE）疗效进行观察，并与同期国外脑活素治疗30例进行对比，两组基本情况经统计学处理，P均＞0．05。治疗后NBNA评分＜35分各为28％、25％，颅脑B超异常率各为33．3％及3o％，P均＞0．05。随访结果：后遗症发生率各为14．2％及11．l％，病死率分别为3．6％、7．4％，P均＞0．05。丽珠赛乐与脑活素治疗HIE的疗效无明显差异。     

丽珠肠乐与利巴韦林治疗小儿秋季腹泻120例报告

目的：观察微生态调节剂丽珠肠乐与利巴韦林联用对小儿秋季腹泻的治疗作用。方法：将符合临床诊断标准的２４０ 例病毒性肠炎,随机分为丽珠肠乐与利巴韦林治疗组（１２０ 例）及单用利巴韦林对照组（１２０ 例）,两组均不用抗生素、止泻收敛药,如有脱水,给予口服补液,并调整饮食。结果：治疗组和对照组总有效率分别为９６．６７ ％ 和８０．０％ 。显效率分别为８０．０ ％ 和５３．３３％ ,止泻时间分别为４１．３２ ±１８．９２ ｈ 和５１．５３±１９．０１ ｈ,治疗组疗效明显优于对照组,差异显著（ Ｐ＜０．０１） 。结论：丽珠肠乐与利巴韦林合用对小儿秋季腹泻具有协同治疗作用。     

乌灵胶囊对慢性乙型肝炎患者抑郁症状的疗效观察

目的观察乌灵胶囊对乙型肝炎(CHB)患者抑郁症状的疗效与安全性。方法将80例CHB伴抑郁患者随机分为治疗组(40例)和对照组(40例),在常规CHB治疗的基础上分别给予乌灵胶囊和氟哌噻吨美利曲辛片(黛力新),并于治疗前及治疗6周后采用Zung抑郁自评量表(SDS)由患者自我评估抑郁状态。结果两组SDS评分均较给药前明显降低(P<0.01),对抑郁症状总有效率分别为72.50%、85.0%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗组未见明显不良反应,对照组有4例出现药物不良反应,主要为恶心、食欲减退、失眠等。结论乌灵胶囊能有效治疗乙型肝炎患者的抑郁症状且不良反应少。     

氯化血红素胶囊的研制及临床疗效

本文介绍了氯化血红素胶囊的制备工艺、质量标准、药效学、稳定性及临床疗效观察。经临床治疗缺铁性贫血（ＩＤＡ）患者１２０例，取得显著疗效，其中治愈率为６０．９％，总有效率为９６．２％，无胃肠道副作用，是一种治疗ＩＤＡ理想的新型铁剂。     

Primary care treatment of depression in the elderly: a double-blind, multi-centre study of flupenthixol ('Fluanxol') and sustained-release amitriptyline

A multi-centre general practice study was carried out to compare flupenthixol and a sustained-release preparation of amitriptyline in the primary care treatment of depression in the elderly. Fifty-one clinically depressed patients, aged 65 years or over, were allocated at random to one of the two treatment groups in this 4-week double-blind, double-dummy study. On entry, patients received either a 0.5 mg flupenthixol tablet in the morning and a placebo capsule at night (25 patients) or a 25 mg sustained-release amitriptyline capsule at night and a placebo tablet in the morning (26 patients), but at the end of the first or second weeks the dosage could be doubled according to the assessed clinical need. Fourteen patients in each treatment group had their dosages doubled. Patient assessment was undertaken on study entry and after 1, 2 and 4 weeks of treatment using a 0 to 3 scale global assessment and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale; side-effects were recorded on the UKU Scale. After 4-weeks' treatment, over 80% of patients in each group had improved and in the flupenthixol group there was additionally a noticeable and highly significant reduction in symptom severity after only 1 week of treatment. Patients treated with flupenthixol had fewer and milder side-effects.     

The treatment of mixed affective disorders in general practice: a comparison of trazodone and dothiepin

The efficacy and tolerance of trazodone in the treatment of mixed affective disorder was compared with that of dothiepin in a double-blind, parallel group study in 228 general practice patients at 10 centres. After satisfying entry criteria, patients were randomized to receive either 150 mg trazodone at night, or 75 mg dothiepin at night for a 6-week period. Efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and Anxiety. Significant improvements were observed in the condition of patients in each of the two treatment groups during the 6-week treatment period (p = 0.0001), with no statistically significant difference between the groups. There were no marked differences between the two treatment groups in the type of side-effects reported in response to open questioning, although a higher percentage of symptoms in the trazodone group were mild compared to the dothiepin group, and a lower percentage were severe. The incidence side-effects recorded by means of a checklist of common psychotropic side-effects was similar for the two treatment groups: dry mouth and drowsiness were the most frequent. A slightly higher proportion of patients withdrew from the dothiepin group, and of those who withdrew a higher percentage was due to side-effects than in the trazodone group.     

The effect of different indomethacin formulations in young and elderly patients: a comparative controlled clinical trial

In a double-blind, crossover trial a controlled-release multiple-units indomethacin formulation (50 mg twice daily) was compared with conventional capsules (25 mg twice daily with 50 mg in the evening) in 12 young and 18 elderly in-patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Earlier findings that younger patients preferred a slow-release formulation and the elderly a standard formulation could not be confirmed. As a whole, the duration of morning stiffness was reduced more (p = 0.02) with the controlled-release formulation than with the conventional formulation. During the treatment period (7 days), 4 patients reported side-effects from the conventional capsules, 3 from the controlled-release formulation, and 6 from both treatments; 53% of the patients preferred the controlled-release formulation, while 20% preferred the conventional capsule (p = 0.046).     

2种文拉法辛制剂治疗抑郁症的对照研究

目的:研究2种文拉法辛制剂治疗抑郁症的疗效和安全性。方法:入组病例符合CCMD-2R抑郁症诊断标准,随机分为试验组(文拉法辛缓释胶囊)30例,对照组(文拉法辛胶囊)30例,用HAMD、HAMA、TESS量表评价疗效和不良反应。结果:2组药物均对抑郁症治疗效果良好,2组病人的HAMD评分自治疗后1wk起均有明显改善。试验组HAMD减分率自2wk末开始明显高于对照组(P<0.05), HAMA减分率自治疗后1wk末即明显高于对照组(P<0.01),显效率87％,有效率97％,均高于对照组,TESS评分对照组高于试验组,但无严重不良反应,不影响治疗。结论:文拉法辛缓释胶囊治疗抑郁症起效快,疗效好,不良反应少,服用方便,依从性好。     

胶囊内镜在诊断老年不明原因消化道出血患者中的价值研究

目的：探讨胶囊内镜对老年不明原因消化道出血患者的使用价值。方法选取2009年9月～2013年7月来我院就诊137例不明原因消化道出血患者,将患者按照年龄分为两组,老年组75例,非老年组62例,采用胶囊内镜进行检查,比较两组检查结果。结果老年组患者小肠转运时间明显高于非老年组（P＜0.05）,老年组血管病变阳性诊断率高于非老年组,而克罗恩病阳性诊断率低于非老年组（P＜0.05）。结论老年不明原因消化道出血患者检查手段中胶囊内镜安全性及诊断价值较高,可以推广应用。     

A double-blind controlled study of viloxazine and imipramine in depression

Summary

Fifty-nine depressed patients entered a double-blind, between patient comparison of viloxazine hydrochloride (300?mg./day expressed as base) and imipramine hydro-chloride (150?mg./day expressed as salt). Twenty-nine patients took viloxazine and 30 imipramine. Depression was assessed at weekly intervals, using the Hamilton Scale over a period of 6 weeks, and both drugs produced a statistically significant antidepressant effect. No difference emerged between the response to the two agents. Imipramine was associated with a significantly higher incidence of side-effects than viloxazine and they were more persistent. Imipramine produced a mean increase in weight over 6 weeks of 5.9 kg. whereas viloxazine produced a rise of only 2.4 kg. Viloxazine produced few anticholinergic side-effects; imipramine, on the other hand, was associated with frequent and persistent side-effects such as dry mouth, blurred vision, disturbed micturition and constipation. Drowsiness was not seen with viloxazine but was seen in over half the patients on imipramine. It is concluded that, whereas viloxazine has antidepressant properties equal to those of imipramine, it has a much lower incidence of side-effects, and what side-effects it does have are transient.     

芪胶升白胶囊对白细胞减少症的疗效观察

目的探讨芪胶升白胶囊对白细胞减少症的疗效。方法对我院2010年3月至2012年9月收治的125例白细胞减少症患者分为两组,其中治疗组63例应用常规升白细胞药物加用芪胶升白胶囊治疗;对照组62例仅常规药物治疗。观察两组的疗效。结果治疗组白细胞水平显著高于对照组（4.26±0.41,3.69±0.38,P〈0.05）总有效率79.4%明显高于对照组61.3%,两组差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论芪胶升白胶囊是治疗白细胞减少症的安全、有效的药物,值得临床推广。     

A comparative trial of a controlled-release formulation of ketoprofen ('Oruvail') and a conventional capsule formulation of ketoprofen ('Orudis') in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip

An open study was carried out in 46 patients with osteoarthritis of the hip to compare the efficacy and tolerance of treatment with ketoprofen given either as 100 mg capsules twice daily or as 2 capsules of 100 mg ketoprofen in a controlled-release formulation given once daily. The results of subjective and objective assessments before and during 3-months' treatment in the 48 patients who completed the trial showed both treatments produced improvement in all parameters, except for the time taken for inactivity stiffness to develop, and there was no significant difference between treatments in terms of efficacy. The controlled-release preparation, however, was significantly better tolerated than the ordinary capsule form. Minor haematological and biochemical changes during treatment were noted but these were not of clinical importance. Six patients, 2 receiving the controlled-release and 4 receiving the ordinary formulation of ketoprofen, were withdrawn because of lack of efficacy or unacceptable side-effects.