拉米夫定和α-干扰素序贯联合治疗慢性乙型肝炎疗效观察

目的探讨拉米夫定与干扰素序贯联合治疗慢性乙型肝炎的疗效。方法30例慢性乙型肝炎患者接受拉米夫定100mg／13口服，直到血清HBVDNA转阴后，联合应用重组人IFN-α2b3MU肌肉注射24周，停拉米夫定，再单用IFN-α24周；对照组30例单用拉米夫定100mg口服，疗程1年。结果治疗结束时ALT复常率治疗组和对照组分别为90．0％和86．7％，两组差异无统计学意义（p〉0．05）。但随访6个月时ALT复常率治疗组和对照组分别为83．3％和56．7％，两组相比有显著性差异（P〈0．05）；治疗组治疗结束时及随访6个月时HBeAg阴转率分别为60．0％和56．7％，对照组阴转率分别为23．3％和20．0％（P〈0．01）；HBeAg转换率治疗组治疗结束时及随访6个月时分别为53．3％和53．3％，对照组分别为20．0％和20．0％（P〈0．01）；治疗结束时HBVDNA阴转率治疗组和对照组分别为86．7％和83．3％，两组差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05），但随访6个月时治疗组和对照组分别为70．0％和43．3％（P〈0．05）。结论拉米夫定与干扰素序贯联合治疗慢性乙型肝炎能明显提高抗病毒疗效，持续应答优于单用拉米夫定治疗者。     

拉米夫定联合α-干扰素治疗慢性乙型肝炎对HBV YMDD变异的影响

目的探讨α-干扰素联合拉米夫定治疗慢性乙型肝炎对HBV YMDD变异的影响。方法40例患者被随机分为治疗组20例，给予口服拉米夫定100mg／d，同时予以αlb-干扰素5MU／d，肌肉注射，两周后改为隔日一次，疗程1年；对照组20例，单用拉米夫定100mg／d，疗程1年。结果疗程结束时，两组患者HBV YMDD变异率分别为15．0％和30．0％（P〈0．05），HBeAg血清转换率分别为40．0％和35．0%（P〉0．05）。治疗组发生YMDD变异率明显低于对照组。结论拉米夫定联合干扰素治疗慢性乙型肝炎，不能提高HBeAg血清转换率，但可降低YMDD变异率。     

拉米夫定联合胸腺肽治疗慢性乙型肝炎的疗效观察

目的 评价拉米夫定联合胸腺肽治疗慢性乙型肝炎(CHB)的近、远期疗效和安全性，探讨两者联合治疗的协同作用。方法 将207例HBV DNA及HBeAg阳性的CHB患者随机分为甲乙两组，甲组采用拉米夫定和胸腺肽联合治疗，乙组单用拉米夫定治疗。胸腺肽15mg口服，每日1次，疗程6个月。两组拉米夫定治疗均为100mg，每日1次，口服，其中甲组92例(92／124)、乙组70例(70／83)用药超过12个月。两组在治疗6个月、12个月时分别进行疗效评价，治疗结束后继续随访12个月。结果 治疗6个月时，甲乙两组ALT复常率分别为87．1％和74．7％，甲组显著高于乙组(P＜0．05)，但两组HBV DNA阴转率、HBeAg阴转率及HBeAg／抗—HBe血清转换率均无显著性差异(P＞0．05)。治疗12个月时，甲乙两组ALT复常率和HBV DNA阴转率无显著性差异(P＞0．05)，甲组HBeAg阴转率及HBeAg／抗-HBe血清转换率均显著高于乙组(P＜0．05)。随访结束时，甲组从量复常率、HBV DNA阴转率、HBeAg阴转率及HBeAg／抗—HBe血清转换率均显著高于乙组(P＜0．05)。结论 拉米夫定与胸腺肽联合治疗CHB，疗效明显优于单用拉米夫定，是CHB患者安全有效的治疗方法。     

拉米夫定联合干扰素治疗慢性乙型肝炎的HBV清除动力学研究

比较拉米夫定联合干扰素和单用治疗慢性乙型肝炎对血清HBv清除动力学的影响，探讨联合治疗的安全性和抗病毒效果。88例HBeAg和HBV DNA均阳性慢性乙肝患者随机分为三组：联合组30例，给予拉米夫定100mg口服，每日1次，干扰素a3MU，肌肉注射，每周3次。拉米夫定组22例，干扰素组36例。疗程均为6个月。治疗结束时，ALT复常率联合组(100％)和拉米夫定组(95．4％)均明显高于干扰素组(44．4％)(P＜0．05)。治疗1个月时，血清HBV DNA下降幅度联合组和拉米夫定组均显著高于干扰素组(P＜0．05)。治疗结束时，血清HBV DNA阴转率联合组(100％)和拉米夫定组(100％)均明显高于干扰素组(44．4％)(P＜0．05)；血清HBeAg阴转率联合组(63．3％)明显高于拉米夫定组(31．8％)和干扰素组(38．9％)(P＜0．05)。血清HBeAg转换率联合组(56．7％)明显高于拉米夫定组(13．64)和干扰素组(27．78％)(P＜0．05)。拉米夫定和干扰素联合治疗慢性乙型肝炎是安全的，抗病毒效果优于单一药物治疗。     

拉米夫定治疗乙型肝炎失败患者干扰素再治疗后3年观察

目的 观察拉米夫定治疗慢性乙型肝炎失败者干扰素α-2b再治疗的远期疗效。方法 125例拉米夫定治疗慢性乙型肝炎失败者中84例接受干扰素α-2b再治疗、5Mu／d，1月后改为隔131次，疗程6个月；21例继续接受拉米夫定治疗，20例接受一般护肝治疗。观察患者治疗前、治疗后1个月、3个月、6个月、12个月、24个月、36个月肝功能、乙型肝炎病毒血清标志物、HBVDNA、YMDD变异情况。结果 治疗结束时，干扰素组患者HBVDNA阴转率及HBeAg阴转率分别为46．4％和40．5％；拉米夫定治疗组分别为19．0％和9．5％，护肝治疗组均为5．0％，干扰素组与其他两组在统计学上有显著差异（P〈0．05）。36个月随访结束时，干扰素组、拉米夫定组和保守治疗组的综合应答率分别为17．8％、9．5％、10．0％，无统计学差异（P〈0．05）。拉米夫定组YMDD变异达76．2％，而另两组YMDD变异分别为3．6％和5％。结论 拉米夫定治疗失败者仍可选用干扰素抗病毒治疗，但远期疗效较差。     

单用拉米夫定与联合α干扰素治疗慢性乙型肝炎的疗效观察

目的观察和对比单用拉米夫定与拉米夫定联合α干扰素治疗慢性乙型肝炎的安全性和疗效.方法拉米夫定组64例,单服拉米夫定,100mg或150mg,每日1次,其中54例(84.4%)用药超过12个月.联合组49例,拉米夫定用药2周后加用干扰素(甘乐能或罗荛愫),3MU～5MU肌肉或皮下注射,每周3次,24周后停干扰素,继续服拉米夫定,其中38例(77.6%)治疗超过12个月.两组在治疗6个月、12个月时分别进行疗效评价,并继续随访4～26个月.结果拉米夫定组和联合组6个月时ALT/AST复常率分别为90.6%/92.2%和89.8%/93.9%(P＞0.05);HBVDNA阴转率分别为96.9%和98.0%(P＞0.05);HBeAg的血清转换率为20.3%和28.6%(P＞0.05).12个月时两组ALT/AST的复常率分别为90.7%/90.7和89.5%/92.1%(P＞0.05);HBV DNA阴转率为88.9%和89.5%(P＞0.05);HBeAg的血清转换率则分别为31.5%(17/54)和55.3%(21/38),P＜0.05.HBeAg的血清转换率似乎与治疗前的转氨酶水平较高、HBeAg和HBV DNA水平较低有关.治疗9～24个月期间拉米夫定组9例(14.1%)、联合组6例(12.2%)发生HBV多聚酶YMDD变异.结论拉米夫定和干扰素联合治疗慢性乙型肝炎,安全性和耐受性良好,1年后HBeAg的血清转换率显著高于单用拉米夫定组.     

拉夫米定联合苷必妥治疗慢性乙型肝炎病人的近期疗效

研究拉米夫定联合苷必妥治疗慢性乙型肝炎病人的近期疗效和安全性。选择16例慢性乙型肝炎患者用拉米夫定（100mg/d)和苷必妥(1mg/d）治疗为观察组，选择15例患者单独服用拉米夫定（100mg/d)作对照，共治疗12周。疗效评估包括肝功能和HBV复制指标。治疗12周疗程结束时，血清HBVDNA阴转率在两组间差异无显著性（100％对80．0％，P＞0．05），观察组HBeAg阴转率显著高于对照组（87．5％对26．7％，P＜0．01），HBeAg血清转换率在两组间差异有显著性（78．6％对25．09％，P＜0．05），观察组ALT的复常率显著高于对照组（100．0％对66．7％，P＜0．05）。未发生不良反应。拉米夫定联合苷必妥治疗慢性乙型肝炎的近期疗效肯定， 安全性好。     

拉米夫定的疗程及早期应答与疗效的关系

目的探讨拉米夫定治疗慢性乙型肝炎的方法与疗效的关系。方法收集179例接受拉米夫定治疗的乙型肝炎e抗原（HBeAg）阳性的慢性乙型肝炎患者的资料，分析早期应答、病毒变异、疗程等与疗效的关系。结果随着治疗时间延长，丙氨酸氨基转移酶（ALT）、HBVDNA、HBeAg和HBeAg／抗-HBe各项指标逐渐改善；1年疗程的HBVDNA阴转率（57．0％）、HBeAg阴转率（39．7％）及HBeAg／抗-HBe转换率（16．8％）均明显高于治疗3个月时的水平（X2值分别为28．489、33．238、12．690，P〈0．01）。治疗12周时血清HBVDNA水平越低，到治疗52周及随访6个月末时HBVDNA转阴率及HBeAg／抗-HBe血清学转换率越高。疗程为1年、1．5年时，出现HBeAg／抗-HBe转换者HBVDNA反弹率均为40．0％，远低于无转换者（88．2％、85．0％，x^2值分别为12．424、10．237，P〈0．01）。结论拉米夫定治疗是安全有效的，疗程以1．5年为佳。早期应答者疗效较好，如不能在治疗的前3个月内达到DNA应答、1年内出现血清学转换，预示疗效欠佳。     

拉米夫定与α干扰素联合治疗慢性乙型肝炎

目的 观察拉米夫定(LAM)联合干扰素α1b(IFNα1b)治疗慢性乙型肝炎的近期疗效和安全性。方法 HBV DNA和HBeAg均阳性的90例慢性乙型肝炎患者，按1：1：1的比例进入三个不同的治疗组。联合治疗组：用IFNα1b 5MU，隔日肌肉注射，及口服LAM 100mg／d，共6个月，随后单用口服LAM 100mg／d6个月；LAM组：口服LAM 100mg／d共12月：IFN组：IFN α1b 5MU，隔日肌肉注射，共6个月。结果 治疗结束时，HBV DNA转阴率，联合治疗组为90．0％，LAM组为80％，IFN组为46．7％。丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT)复常率，联合治疗组为90．0％，LAM组为80．0％，IFN组为53．3％。HBeAg／抗HBe血清转换率，联合治疗组为46．7％，LAM组为13．3％，IFN组为33．3％。联合治疗组患者治疗结束时无一例检测到YMDD变异。结论 联合治疗组对HBV DNA抑制作用及ALT复常率高于单用干扰素组，与单用拉米夫定组接近。HBeAg／抗HBe血清转换率高于拉米夫定组，与单用干扰素组相近。初步显示联合治疗组发生YMDD变异较少。     

α-干扰素与拉米夫定联合治疗慢性乙型肝炎的疗效观察

目的对比观察单用拉米夫定与其联合α干扰素治疗慢性乙型肝炎的疗效和安全性。方法拉米夫定组56例,给予拉米夫定100mg/日,服用12～15个月;联合组54例,给予拉米夫定100mg/日,两周后联合α干扰素3～5MU肌肉注射,每周3次,连用6个月,继续服用拉米夫定100mg/日,至12～15个月。并继续随访6个月,观察治疗6个月、12个月治疗结果。结果拉米夫定组和联合组6个月时HBVDNA阴转率分别为96.7%和97.8%;ALT/AST复常率分别为88.5%/90.5%和88%/93.1%(P>0.05);HBeAg的血清学转换率分别为22%和29.3%(P>0.05)。12个月时两组ALT/AST复常率为91%/91.6%和89%/92.5%(P>0.05);HBeAg血清学转换率为40%和56%,P<0.05。结论拉米夫定联合干扰素治疗慢性乙型肝炎,安全性、耐受性良好。联合组治疗1年后HBeAg血清转换率明显高于单用拉米夫定组。     

肿瘤病人弓形虫感染分析

在肿瘤的发生和发展进程中 ,多伴有免疫功能低下或缺陷 ,从而极易遭受各种感染。弓形虫是机会感染因子 ,当患者免疫功能受损时 ,易于感染 ,还会使隐性感染激活 ,引起低热不退、淋巴结肿和脑神经系统的反应 ,此现象尚未引起临床医师的重视。近年来 ,我们对 4 0 9例肿瘤病人进行了弓形虫感染及弓形虫病的分析观察 ,报告如下 :1　材料与方法1 1　材料　 30 4例病人血清取自江西省肿瘤医院住院或门诊病人 ,随机抽样后低温保存待检 ,10 5例取自其他医院送检样品 ,有急性症状者随到随检 ,以便及时做病原学检测。1 2　弓形虫病诊断方法1 2 1　免疫…     

A patient with rectal ulcer with severe stenosis presenting with perforated peritonitis

We report a patient with rectal ulcer with severe stenosis, who underwent urgent surgical treatment for perforated peritonitis. The 54-year-old man suddenly developed cramping abdominal pain and fever while hospitalized, with signs of peritoneal irritation. An emergency laparotomy was performed, and severe stenosis of the rectum and a perforated lesion on the oral side approximately 10 cm distant from the stenosis were found, with massive abdominal purulent fluid. He was treated by rectosigmoid colon resection with transverse colon loop colostomy. Histopathologically, the stenosis was caused by ulceration extending to all muscular layers of the rectum, with inflammatory changes. Benign rectal stenosis is so rare that differential diagnosis from malignancy may be difficult when there are inflammatory changes in the surrounding tissues. However, it is necessary to keep in mind the likelihood of this disease in differentiation from rectal cancer. Received: December 21, 1998 / Accepted: May 28, 1999     

Infection with Rhodococcus equi in a patient with sarcoidosis treated with corticosteroids

A 51-year-old female farmer was diagnosed as having sarcoidosis. During 4 years of observation, slow radiological progression was observed. Cough then developed, necessitating treatment with corticosteroids. After 28 months of continuous treatment with prednisolone in low doses (5-7.5 mg daily), she suffered fever episodes, recurrent haemoptyses, general malaise and loss of weight. A chest roentgenogram showed a left upper lobe infiltrate, which progressed and finally cavitated, and rib destruction. Despite efforts, including a thoracotomy, 22 months passed before a diagnosis could be made. Blood and sputum cultures and cultures from the destroyed rib showed growth of Rhodococcus equi, a common soil organism which can cause infections in foals and other animals. Treatment with rifampicin and erythromycin was successful. R. equi has been reported to cause infection in patients with neoplastic disease and/or immunosuppression, but the disease might be more common than is suggested by the sparse case reports in the literature, owing to lack of familiarity with the organism, which will tend to be overlooked as a contaminant.     

Evaluation of atrial vulnerability with transoesophageal stimulation in patients with atrioventricular junctional: Comparison with patients with ventricular pre-excitation and with normal subjects

The aim of our work was to evaluate the inducibility of atrialfibrillation in a group of patients with atrioventricular junctionalreentrant tachycardia and to compare it with that of patientswith a Kent-type ventricular pre-excitation (Wolff-Parkinson-Whitesyndrome) and a control group. One hundred and twenty-five subjects were separated into groups.Group 1 comprised 49 Wolff-Parkinson-White patients, with amean age of 26.4, range 10.66 years; group 2, 51 patients withatrioventricular junctional reentrant tachycardia inducibleby transoesophageal atrial stimulation andlor clinically documented,with a mean age of 43.4, range 16–78 years; group 3, 25control subjects with a mean age of2.64, range 13–76 years. Each subject underwent atrial transoesophageal stimulation withthe following protocol: programmed atrial stimulation with 1and 2 stimuli during atrial pacing of 100. min^–1 and 150.min^–1; atrial stimulation for 10 s at a rate of 200–300–400–500–600.min^–1 with intervals of 10 s between stimulations, fivesuccessive ‘ramp-up’ atrial stimulations for 9 swith the rate increasing from 100 to 800. min^–1 with intervalsof 10 s between stimulations. The end point was the completionof the protocol or induction of sustained atrial fibrillation(>1 min). The chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. Our resultsshowed that in group 1 atrial fibrillation was induced in 27149patients (55.1%); this was sustained in 13149 (26.5%) and non-sustainedin 14149 (28.5%); in group 2, atrial fibrillation was inducedin 22151 patients (43.0%); it was sustained in 7151 (13.7%)and non-sustained in 15151 (29.4%); in group 3, sustained atrialfibrillation was not induced in any subject and in only onesubject was a non-sustained atrial fibrillation (4 s) induced. The chi-square test showed that group 2 vs group 1 were non-significant,while group 2 vs group 3 and group 1 vs group 3 were significant(P<0.003 and P<0.0007, respectively). Therefore group 2 patients showed a greater atrial vulnerabilityin comparison to the control subjects and a similar vulnerabilityto group 1 patients. It is possible that the greater atrialvulnerability in the patients of group 2 was due to the doublenodal pathway.     

Treating patients with lupus with B-cell depletion

A new era in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus has dawned with the increasing introduction of monoclonal antibodies and other approaches, that target the key molecules involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. At present the ability to block the CD20 molecule on those B cells that carry this marker has proved the most effective way to treat patients resistant to conventional immunosuppressive drugs. However, these studies have all been open label and the results of double blind controlled studies are eagerly awaited.