【摘要】：目的:觀察益氣固表協(xié)定處方(中醫(yī)辯證結(jié)合生物共振技術(shù)獲得)治療表虛不固型慢性自發(fā)性蕁麻疹的臨床療效、復(fù)發(fā)率及安全性[1]。方法:將90例表虛不固型慢性自發(fā)性蕁麻疹患者隨機(jī)分為治療組(45例)和對(duì)照組(45例),治療組給予益氣固表協(xié)定處方口服;對(duì)照組給予鹽酸左西替利嗪片口服。4W為1療程,治療2個(gè)療程,分別觀察給藥前、1(4W)個(gè)療程、2(8W)個(gè)療程末及停藥1(4W)個(gè)療程后兩組蕁麻疹患者活動(dòng)度評(píng)分(皮疹大小、顏色、數(shù)量、分布、瘙癢、發(fā)生頻率、持續(xù)時(shí)間、劃痕癥、點(diǎn)刺試驗(yàn))、臨床療效、復(fù)發(fā)率、安全性。結(jié)果:①服藥4W末和8W末,兩組患者UAS評(píng)分相對(duì)于前一個(gè)觀察時(shí)點(diǎn)均明顯下降[1];② 4W后的總體有效情況,治療(益氣固表處方)組與對(duì)照(鹽酸左西替利嗪)組分別為44.4%和46.7%,在統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)上無顯著差異(P=0.533);③8W后總體有效情況,治療(益氣固表處方)與對(duì)照(鹽酸左西替利嗪)組經(jīng)計(jì)算分別是88.9%和80.0%,在統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)上無顯著差異(P=0.427);④患者停藥1療程后隨訪,復(fù)發(fā)情況相比治療組和對(duì)照組分別為10.0%和33.3%,在統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)上有顯著差異(P=0.027);⑤安全性:不良反應(yīng)情況方面相對(duì)于對(duì)照組(24.4%),治療組較低(6.7%),兩組統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)有顯著差異(P=0.042)。結(jié)論:益氣固表協(xié)定處方(中醫(yī)辯證結(jié)合生物共振技術(shù)獲得)治療表虛不固型慢性自發(fā)性蕁麻疹臨床療效和公認(rèn)的西藥(鹽酸左西替利嗪)對(duì)比療效相當(dāng),且復(fù)發(fā)率低、副作用小,為加快中醫(yī)傳承方面提供了一種全新的方法,對(duì)推動(dòng)中醫(yī)藥理論與臨床的客觀量化研究工作發(fā)揮積極地作用。
[Abstract]:Objective: to observe the clinical efficacy, recurrence rate and safety of Yiqi-Gu surface agreement prescription (obtained by traditional Chinese medicine syndrome combined with biological resonance technique) in the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria with superficial deficiency. Methods: 90 patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria with superficial deficiency and instability were randomly divided into treatment group (n = 45) and control group (n = 45). The control group was given levatirizine hydrochloric acid tablets. 4W as a course of treatment, two courses of treatment, respectively, before administration, 1 (4W) course of treatment, 4 W, 4 W and 4 W, respectively. 2 (8W) at the end of treatment and 1 (4W) after withdrawal of medicine, the activity score of urticaria patients in the two groups (rash size, color, quantity, distribution, pruritus, frequency, duration, scratch, pruritus test), clinical efficacy, Recurrence rate, safety. Results: 1at the end of 4W and 8W, the UAS score of the two groups was significantly lower than that of the previous observation point [1]. After 24 weeks, the overall effective rate was 44.4% and 46.7% in the treatment group and the control group, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the treatment group (P 鈮，

本文編號(hào)：2494865