莫沙必利与多潘立酮治疗功能性消化不良的临床疗效比较
|
摘要
目的对比莫沙必利与多潘立酮治疗功能性消化不良的临床疗效与安全性。方法方便选取2017年2月—2018年2月医院门诊收治的功能性消化不良患者入组,每入选1例符合要求的对象,便随机分组,直至莫沙必利组、多潘立酮组各入组100例,分别采用莫沙必利、多潘立酮治疗,持续8周,对比疗效、不良反应发生情况。结果莫沙必利退出2例,多潘立酮退出3例。莫沙必利组愈显率高于多潘立酮组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。莫沙必利组与多潘立酮组整体疗效差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。莫沙必利组组腹胀、早饱症状控制时间高于多潘立酮组,莫沙必利组嗳气症状控制时间低于多潘立酮组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组均未见不良反应,莫沙必利组复发率5.1%(5/98),多潘立酮组10.3%(10/97),差异无统计学意义(χ~2=1.917,P=0.166>0.05)。结论莫沙必利与多潘立酮治疗功能性消化不良疗效存在一定的差异,整体上看莫沙必利的疗效更好,但是两者在预防复发方面无显著的差异。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of mosapride and domperidone in the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Methods Convenient select from February 2017 to February 2018, patients with functional dyspepsia admitted to the outpatient department of the hospital were enrolled. Each eligible person was selected and randomly divided into mosapride group and domperidone group. 100 cases of mosapride and domperidone were used respectively for 8 weeks to compare the effects and adverse reactions. Results Mosapride was withdrawn from 2 patients and domperidone was withdrawn from 3 patients. The rate of mosapride was higher than that of domperidone group, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the overall efficacy between the mosapride group and the domperidone group(P>0.05). The control time of bloating and early satiety in the mosapride group was higher than that in the domperidone group. The control time of hernia in the mosapride group was lower than that in the domperidone group, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). No adverse reactions were observed in the two groups. The recurrence rate was 5.1%(5/98) in the mosapride group and 10.3%(10/97) in the domperidone group. The difference was not statistically significant(χ~2=1.917, P=0.166>0.05). Conclusion There is a certain difference between the efficacy of mosapride and domperidone in the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Overall, the efficacy of mosapride is better, but there is no significant difference in the prevention of recurrence.
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of mosapride and domperidone in the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Methods Convenient select from February 2017 to February 2018, patients with functional dyspepsia admitted to the outpatient department of the hospital were enrolled. Each eligible person was selected and randomly divided into mosapride group and domperidone group. 100 cases of mosapride and domperidone were used respectively for 8 weeks to compare the effects and adverse reactions. Results Mosapride was withdrawn from 2 patients and domperidone was withdrawn from 3 patients. The rate of mosapride was higher than that of domperidone group, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the overall efficacy between the mosapride group and the domperidone group(P>0.05). The control time of bloating and early satiety in the mosapride group was higher than that in the domperidone group. The control time of hernia in the mosapride group was lower than that in the domperidone group, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). No adverse reactions were observed in the two groups. The recurrence rate was 5.1%(5/98) in the mosapride group and 10.3%(10/97) in the domperidone group. The difference was not statistically significant(χ~2=1.917, P=0.166>0.05). Conclusion There is a certain difference between the efficacy of mosapride and domperidone in the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Overall, the efficacy of mosapride is better, but there is no significant difference in the prevention of recurrence.
引文
[1]王小萍,曹竟敏,马虹.功能性消化不良自我效能调查及护理措施研究[J].现代消化及介入诊疗,2018,23(1):115-118.
[2]任高升,安超.功能性消化不良患者胃排空异常发生情况及影响因素分析[J].四川解剖学杂志,2018,26(1):49-50.
[3]张华,李秘,田儒俊,等.贵州黔南地区农村少数民族居民功能性消化不良患病现状及其危险因素分析[J].中国公共卫生,2018,34(5):677-681.
[4]姚瑶,郑晓媛,张喆,等.莫沙必利对比质子泵抑制剂治疗功能性消化不良疗效与安全性的系统评价[J].中国药房,2015,26(15):2094-2097.
[5]汤勇,陈雄,杨周平,等.舒肝解郁胶囊联合莫沙必利治疗FD的随机对照研究Meta分析[J].现代中西医结合杂志,2016,25(16):1734-1736,1740.
[6]张兆林,徐虹,徐建军,等.多潘立酮联合黛力新治疗功能性消化不良的Meta分析[J].中国医刊,2017,52(1):41-45.
[7]韩燕.功能性消化不良患者胃电图与胃排空关系特点分析[J].世界最新医学信息文摘,2015,15(9):36-37.
[8]张琴,贺国斌,刘平,等.功能性消化不良不同亚型患者心理因素的比较研究[J].胃肠病学,2016,21(9):554-556.
[9]郭先文,黄丹,左国文,等.精神心理因素与老年功能性消化不良研究进展[J].临床荟萃,2014(6):717-719.
[10]张声生,李晓玲.功能性消化不良的中西医研究进展[J].首都医科大学学报,2015,36(4):649-653.
[2]任高升,安超.功能性消化不良患者胃排空异常发生情况及影响因素分析[J].四川解剖学杂志,2018,26(1):49-50.
[3]张华,李秘,田儒俊,等.贵州黔南地区农村少数民族居民功能性消化不良患病现状及其危险因素分析[J].中国公共卫生,2018,34(5):677-681.
[4]姚瑶,郑晓媛,张喆,等.莫沙必利对比质子泵抑制剂治疗功能性消化不良疗效与安全性的系统评价[J].中国药房,2015,26(15):2094-2097.
[5]汤勇,陈雄,杨周平,等.舒肝解郁胶囊联合莫沙必利治疗FD的随机对照研究Meta分析[J].现代中西医结合杂志,2016,25(16):1734-1736,1740.
[6]张兆林,徐虹,徐建军,等.多潘立酮联合黛力新治疗功能性消化不良的Meta分析[J].中国医刊,2017,52(1):41-45.
[7]韩燕.功能性消化不良患者胃电图与胃排空关系特点分析[J].世界最新医学信息文摘,2015,15(9):36-37.
[8]张琴,贺国斌,刘平,等.功能性消化不良不同亚型患者心理因素的比较研究[J].胃肠病学,2016,21(9):554-556.
[9]郭先文,黄丹,左国文,等.精神心理因素与老年功能性消化不良研究进展[J].临床荟萃,2014(6):717-719.
[10]张声生,李晓玲.功能性消化不良的中西医研究进展[J].首都医科大学学报,2015,36(4):649-653.