论文部分内容阅读
目的比较利福喷汀(RFT)和利福平(RFP)治疗肺结核的临床疗效及安全性分析。方法选取德阳市中江县人民医院2013年8月—2015年8月收治的肺结核患者136例,根据用药不同分为RFT组和RFP组,各68例。患者均给予基础治疗,RFT组加服RFT胶囊,RFP组加服RFP胶囊,持续治疗6个月。比较两组患者血常规指标[血小板计数(PLT)、白细胞计数(WBC)]、生化指标[丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT)、血尿酸(UA)]、痰菌转阴率及空洞闭合率、不良反应发生情况。结果治疗前两组患者PLT、WBC、ALT、UA水平比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后RFT组PLT、WBC高于RFP组,ALT、UA水平低于RFP组(P<0.05)。RFT组痰菌转阴率与空洞闭合率高于RFP组,RFT组不良反应发生率低于RFP组(P<0.05)。结论 RFT较RFP治疗肺结核的临床疗效更好,抗菌能力更强,可有效改善患者症状,提高患者生存质量,且不良反应少。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of rifapentine (RFT) and rifampin (RFP) in the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Methods 136 cases of tuberculosis patients who were treated in Zhongjiang County People’s Hospital of Deyang City from August 2013 to August 2015 were divided into RFT group and RFP group according to the different drugs. Patients were given basic treatment, RFT group plus RFT capsule, RFP group plus RFP capsule, continuous treatment for 6 months. The blood routine indexes (PLT, WBC), biochemical indicators (ALT, UA), sputum negative conversion rate and void closure rate were compared between the two groups Adverse reactions occurred. Results There was no significant difference in PLT, WBC, ALT and UA levels between the two groups before treatment (P> 0.05). After treatment, the PLT and WBC in RFT group were higher than those in RFP group, while the levels of ALT and UA in RFT group were lower than those in RFP group (P < 0.05). RFT group sputum bacterial negative rate and void closure rate was higher than RFP group, RFT group adverse reaction rate was lower than the RFP group (P <0.05). Conclusion RFT is more effective than RFP in the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis and has stronger antibacterial ability. It can effectively improve the symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients with less adverse reactions.