论文部分内容阅读
[目的]探究与分析利巴韦林与清开灵治疗肠道病毒感染的临床疗效。[方法]选取我院自2013年3月~2015年3月收治的60例肠道病毒感染患者,采取随机数字表法分为利巴韦林组与清开灵组,每组各30例,对比2组患者的临床疗效、症状消失时间及不良反应。[结果]利巴韦林组的总有效率为76.67%,清开灵组的总有效率为93.33%,组间相比差异显著(χ2=4.35,P<0.05)。利巴韦林组发热、皮疹、水样蛋花样便的消失时间分别为(2.3±0.5)d、(2.6±0.7)d、(3.6±0.8)d,清开灵组发热、皮疹、水样蛋花样便的消失时间分别为(1.5±0.4)d、(1.8±0.7)d、(2.4±0.5)d,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。利巴韦林组的不良反应发生率为23.33%,清开灵组的不良反应发生率为6.67%,组间比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=5.34,P<0.05)。[结论]清开灵相比于利巴韦林治疗肠道病毒感染的临床疗效更加显著,症状消失时间缩短,不良反应发生率较低,值得推广。
[Objective] To explore and analyze the clinical efficacy of ribavirin and Qingkailing in treating enterovirus infection. [Methods] Sixty patients with enterovirus infection in our hospital from March 2013 to March 2015 were randomly divided into ribavirin group and Qingkailing group, with 30 cases in each group. The clinical efficacy, symptom disappearance time and adverse reactions in two groups were compared. [Results] The total effective rate of ribavirin group was 76.67%, while the total effective rate of Qingkailing group was 93.33%. There was significant difference between the two groups (χ2 = 4.35, P <0.05). The disappearance time of fever, rash and water-like egg-like stools in ribavirin group were (2.3 ± 0.5) days, (2.6 ± 0.7) days and (3.6 ± 0.8) days respectively. The disappearance time of egg-like stools were (1.5 ± 0.4) days, (1.8 ± 0.7) days and (2.4 ± 0.5) days, respectively. There was significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in ribavirin group was 23.33%, and the incidence of adverse reactions in Qingkailing group was 6.67%. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (χ2 = 5.34, P <0.05). [Conclusion] Qingkailing is more effective than Ribavirin in the treatment of enteroviral infection, the clinical curative effect is more obvious, the symptoms disappear time is shortened, the incidence of adverse reactions is low, it is worth popularizing.