本文選題：布病 + 抗生素��； 參考：《中國(guó)免疫學(xué)雜志》2017年05期

【摘要】：目的:系統(tǒng)評(píng)價(jià)目前最常用布病療法的有效性和安全性。方法:檢索Pub Med和Cochrane協(xié)作網(wǎng)的CENTRAL數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)中1985年至今全部有關(guān)布病治療的英文文獻(xiàn)以及CBM數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)中所有有關(guān)布病的中文隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn)。使用Cochrane協(xié)作網(wǎng)推薦的隨機(jī)對(duì)照實(shí)驗(yàn)偏倚風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估工具評(píng)估納入研究質(zhì)量。使用固定效應(yīng)模型M-H法合并和分析不同抗生素組合治療布病的復(fù)發(fā)率,總體治療失敗率和不良反應(yīng)率。結(jié)果:共納入隨機(jī)對(duì)照實(shí)驗(yàn)17篇。比較了DR、DS、QR、DG等抗生素聯(lián)合治療方案。DS治療方案總體治療失敗率(RR_(合并):2.53,95%CI:1.51~4.23)和復(fù)發(fā)率(RR_(合并):2.69,95%CI:1.46~4.98)低于DR方案,不良反應(yīng)率二者無(wú)顯著差別(RR_(合并):1.40,95%CI:0.97~2.01);QR組和DR組的復(fù)發(fā)率(RR_(合并):1.24,95%CI:0.67~2.30)和總體治療失敗率(RR_(合并):1.41,95%CI:0.86~2.32)并無(wú)顯著差異。不良反應(yīng)方面,QR組低于DR組(RR_(合并):1.79,95%CI:1.17~2.74)。結(jié)論:DS治療方案治療布病優(yōu)于DR;QR組與DR組療效相差無(wú)幾,但QR方案不良反應(yīng)更少;雙抗治療的基礎(chǔ)上再增加一種抗生素可以提高治療效果,不良反應(yīng)率沒(méi)有明顯升高,但仍需更多臨床證據(jù)證明。
[Abstract]:Objective: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the most commonly used brucellosis therapy. Methods: all the English literature on brucellosis treatment in the CENTral database of Pub Med and Cochrane collaboration and all the Chinese randomized controlled trials on brucellosis in CBM database were searched. A randomized controlled trial bias risk assessment tool recommended by Cochrane collaboration was used to assess the quality of the study. The fixed effect model (M-H) was used to combine and analyze the recurrence rate, the overall failure rate and the adverse reaction rate of different antibiotic combinations in the treatment of brucellosis. Results: a total of 17 randomized controlled trials were conducted. The overall treatment failure rate and the overall treatment failure rate of the DS regimen were compared with that of the Dr scheme. The overall failure rate and the relapse rate were lower than that of the Dr scheme, which were compared with those of the DRDDS QRG regimen. The overall failure rate of the DS regimen was lower than that of the Dr scheme, and the overall treatment failure rate and the relapse rate were lower than that of the Dr scheme. There was no significant difference in the adverse reaction rate between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups. Adverse reactions were lower in QR group than in Dr group. Conclusion the therapeutic effect of the fraction DS regimen on brucellosis is similar to that of the DRQR group, but the adverse reactions of QR regimen are less, and the addition of an antibiotic on the basis of double antibody therapy can improve the therapeutic effect, but the adverse reaction rate is not significantly increased. But more clinical evidence is needed.
【作者單位】： 內(nèi)蒙古醫(yī)科大學(xué)自治區(qū)分子生物學(xué)重點(diǎn)實(shí)驗(yàn)室;
【基金】：國(guó)家“十二五”科技支撐計(jì)劃項(xiàng)目(2014BAI13B03) 國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金(81660272、81460248、81260457) 內(nèi)蒙古自治區(qū)科技重大專(zhuān)項(xiàng) 內(nèi)蒙古自治區(qū)自然科學(xué)基金(2016MS0318、2016MS0368、2015MS0820、2013MS1138、2012MS1121) 內(nèi)蒙古自治區(qū)科技計(jì)劃(20120101、20120402、20110501) 內(nèi)蒙古自治區(qū)衛(wèi)計(jì)委醫(yī)療衛(wèi)生科研計(jì)劃項(xiàng)目(201301035、2010018) 內(nèi)蒙古自治區(qū)高等學(xué)�？茖W(xué)研究項(xiàng)目(NJZY109) 內(nèi)蒙古醫(yī)科大學(xué)青年創(chuàng)新基金項(xiàng)目(YKD2013QNCX012)資助
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：R516.7

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 黃純英;楊巖;邢智鋒;;黑龍江省布病疫情現(xiàn)狀及防治[J];中國(guó)地方病防治雜志;2008年03期

2 潘廣媛;;我縣二起布病暴發(fā)引起的思考[J];中國(guó)社區(qū)醫(yī)師(醫(yī)學(xué)專(zhuān)業(yè)半月刊);2008年21期

3 劉洪;;中西醫(yī)結(jié)合治療布病菌血癥1例報(bào)告[J];中國(guó)現(xiàn)代藥物應(yīng)用;2010年15期

4 Q，

本文編號(hào)：2043437