本文選題：α體甘草酸　切入點：β體甘草酸　出處：《鄭州大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：研究背景： 自身免疫性肝炎(autoimmune hepatitis, AIH)是一種異常自身免疫反應介導的肝實質炎癥性病變。主要治療方法為免疫抑制治療，有一定的治療指征，部分輕癥AIH患者肝組織內炎癥反應較輕，各項指標達不到免疫抑制治療指征，目前臨床上對這部分患者是否給予免疫抑制治療尚存爭議�？紤]到免疫抑制治療不良反應較多，故有必要尋找療效好、安全性高的非激素類藥物。近年來關于α體甘草酸制劑治療病毒性肝炎、脂肪性肝病、藥物性肝損傷等肝病的報道很多，關于其治療輕癥AIH的報道較少。 目的： 觀察α體甘草酸制劑對于輕癥AIH炎癥活動的控制作用。 方法： 選擇2008年9月至2012年10月我院收治的輕癥AIH患者98例（確診為AIH但未達免疫抑制治療指征），隨機分為試驗組和對照組，每組各49例，試驗組應用以α體甘草酸為主的甘草酸制劑（以下簡稱α體甘草酸制劑）治療，先應用異甘草酸鎂注射液連用3周，后改為長期口服甘草酸二銨腸溶膠囊；對照組應用以β體甘草酸為主的甘草酸制劑（以下簡稱β體甘草酸制劑）治療，先應用復方甘草酸苷注射液連用3周,后改為長期口服復方甘草酸苷片。兩組療程均為1年。檢測兩組患者治療前、治療后3個月、6個月、12個月的肝功能、免疫學指標；記錄治療過程中發(fā)生的不良反應；觀察治療前、治療后12個月的肝組織學變化。所有數據均應用SPSS17.0統計學軟件進行分析，，計量資料的比較采用重復測量資料的方差分析，兩組治療效果的比較采用秩和檢驗，兩組不良反應發(fā)生率的比較采用四格表資料的x2檢驗。 結果 1.2組患者治療后谷丙轉氨酶（ALT）、谷草轉氨酶（AST）、球蛋白（GLOB）、免疫球蛋白G（IgG）、γ-球蛋白、C反應蛋白（CRP）均下降，補體3（C3）、補體4（C4）均上升，組內時間點間差異有統計學意義（P0.05）。 2.試驗組上述指標的改善程度優(yōu)于對照組，組間比較差異有統計學意義（P0.05）。 3.試驗組的總有效率高于對照組（82.9.0%vs61.0%），差異有統計學意義（P0.05）。 4.試驗組不良反應發(fā)生率低于對照組(4.08%vs16.3%)，差異有統計學意義(P0.05）。 結論： 1.α體甘草酸制劑和β體甘草酸制劑均可以改善輕癥AIH的肝功能及免疫學指標，對于治療輕癥AIH均有效。 2.α體甘草酸制劑對輕癥AIH的療效優(yōu)于β體甘草酸制劑。 3.在治療輕癥AIH時，α體甘草酸制劑安全性高于β體甘草酸制劑。
[Abstract]:Background:. Autoimmune hepatitis autoimmune hepatitis (AIHs) is an abnormal autoimmune response mediated inflammatory lesion of liver parenchyma. All the indexes can not reach the indication of immunosuppressive therapy. At present, there is still controversy about whether these patients should be given immunosuppressive therapy. Considering that there are more adverse reactions in immunosuppressive therapy, it is necessary to find a good curative effect. In recent years, there are many reports on the treatment of viral hepatitis, fatty liver disease, drug-induced liver injury and other liver diseases by 偽 -body glycyrrhizic acid preparation, but there are few reports on the treatment of mild AIH. Objective:. To observe the control effect of 偽-body glycyrrhizic acid preparation on inflammatory activity of mild AIH. Methods:. From September 2008 to October 2012, 98 patients with mild AIH were randomly divided into experimental group and control group, with 49 cases in each group. The experimental group was treated with 偽 -glycyrrhizic acid preparation (hereinafter referred to as 偽 -glycyrrhizic acid preparation). Magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate injection was used for 3 weeks, then it was treated by long-term oral administration of diammonium glycyrrhizinate enteric-soluble capsule. The control group was treated with 尾 -glycyrrhizic acid preparation (hereinafter referred to as 尾 -glycyrrhizic acid preparation), and was treated with compound glycyrrhizin injection for 3 weeks. The course of treatment in both groups was one year. The liver function and immunological indexes were measured before treatment, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after treatment in both groups, and the adverse reactions occurred during the treatment were recorded. The changes of liver histology before and 12 months after treatment were observed. All the data were analyzed by SPSS17.0 statistical software. The quantitative data were compared by the analysis of variance of repeated measurement data, and the results of treatment were compared by rank sum test. The incidence of adverse reactions in the two groups was compared by using the x 2 test of the four-grid data. Results. After treatment, alanine aminotransferase (alt), alanine aminotransferase (alt), glutamic oxalacetic transaminase (AST), globulin Glob (GLOB), immunoglobulin G (IGG), 緯 -globulin C-reactive protein (CRPP) were all decreased, complement 3C _ (3) and complement (4) C _ (4) were increased, and there was significant difference between the two groups (P 0.05). 2. The improvement of the above indexes in the experimental group was better than that in the control group, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P 0.05). 3. The total effective rate of the test group was higher than that of the control group (82.9.0 vs 61.0), and the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05). 4. The incidence of adverse reactions in the trial group was lower than that in the control group (4.08 vs 16.3g / L), and the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05). Conclusion:. 1. Both 偽 -body glycyrrhizic acid preparation and 尾 -body glycyrrhizic acid preparation can improve liver function and immunological indexes of mild AIH, and are effective in the treatment of mild AIH. 2. 偽-glycyrrhizic acid preparation is superior to 尾-glycyrrhizic acid preparation in the treatment of mild AIH. 3. The safety of 偽-glycyrrhizic acid preparation was higher than that of 尾-glycyrrhizic acid preparation in the treatment of mild AIH.
【學位授予單位】：鄭州大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：R575.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 張明發(fā);沈雅琴;;甘草酸及其苷元甘草次酸的糖皮質激素樣作用[J];現代藥物與臨床;2011年01期

2 張真真;韓真;;自身免疫性肝炎的診斷和治療現狀[J];國際消化病雜志;2012年06期

3 李蘊銣;王文冰;張黎穎;歐蔚妮;謝雯;魏來;;甘草酸類藥物治療自身免疫性肝炎療效分析[J];臨床肝膽病雜志;2007年02期

4 田靜;呂堅;;18α-甘草酸和18β-甘草酸抗大鼠肝纖維化作用比較研究[J];中國現代應用藥學;2006年02期

5 宋菲菲;徐蕓;;異甘草酸鎂治療自身免疫性肝炎肝硬化失代償期炎癥活動的療效觀察[J];實用臨床醫(yī)藥雜志;2011年03期

6 顏苗;張金嬌;李煥德;朱榮華;李蘭芳;;RP-HPLC法同時測定甘草酸制劑中18α-、18β-甘草酸的含量[J];藥物分析雜志;2012年02期

7 劉金城;潘旭旺;蔣小琴;;甘草酸類固醇樣藥理作用及機制研究進展[J];中國藥業(yè);2010年09期

8 ;病毒性肝炎防治方案[J];中華傳染病雜志;2001年01期

9 王慧芬,蘇海濱,劉鴻凌,季偉,李捍衛(wèi),胡瑾華;甘草酸二銨治療各類肝病629例臨床觀察[J];中華傳染病雜志;2004年02期

10 張玉波;段維佳;賈繼東;;2010年美國肝病學會自身免疫性肝炎診治指南要點[J];肝臟;2010年05期

本文編號：1656256