论文部分内容阅读
目的比较顿服与分次服用甲巯咪唑治疗毒性弥漫性甲状腺肿(Graves病)的临床疗效。方法选取2012年1月—2015年1月达州市大竹县人民医院收治的Graves病患者98例,随机分为A组52例与B组46例。A组患者顿服甲巯咪唑治疗,B组患者分次服用甲巯咪唑治疗。观察两组患者临床疗效、漏服次数、治疗前、治疗1、3、5周血清游离三碘甲状腺原氨酸(FT3)、游离四碘甲状腺原氨酸(FT4)水平、血清FT3、FT4水平复常时间及不良反应发生情况。结果 A组患者临床疗效优于B组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);A组患者漏服7次,B患者漏服50次;时间和方法无交互作用(P>0.05),时间间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),治疗前两组患者血清FT3、FT4水平比较,差异无统计学意义(P<0.05),治疗1、3、5周A组患者血清FT3、FT4水平低于B组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组患者血清FT3、FT4水平复常时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);A组患者不良反应发生率低于B组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论顿服甲巯咪唑治疗Graves病的临床疗效优于分次服用,可有效改善患者临床症状,且不良反应少。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of Dayunfu and taking methimazole in the treatment of Graves’ s disease. Methods A total of 98 Graves patients admitted from January 2012 to January 2015 in Dazhu County People’s Hospital of Dazhou were randomly divided into A group (52 cases) and B group (46 cases). Patients in group A were treated with methimazole, and patients in group B were treated with methimazole in separate doses. The clinical efficacy, the number of missed services and the levels of free triiodothyronine (FT3), free tetraethionine (FT4), serum FT3 and FT4 Recurrent time and adverse reactions occurred. Results The clinical efficacy of group A was superior to that of group B (P <0.05). The patients in group A missed seven times and the patients missed 50 times in group B. There was no interaction between time and method (P> 0.05) There was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference in FT3 and FT4 levels between the two groups before treatment (P <0.05) ). The levels of serum FT3 and FT4 in group A were lower than those in group B at 1, 3 and 5 weeks after treatment (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in the normal time of serum FT3 and FT4 between the two groups (P> 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in group A was lower than that in group B, with significant difference (P <0.05). Conclusion Clinical efficacy of Methimazole in the treatment of Graves ’disease is better than that of Graves’ disease, which can effectively improve the clinical symptoms of patients with less adverse reactions.