摘要
目的分析并探讨艾普拉唑在反流性食管炎的临床治疗方面的临床效果和经济效果。方法2010年1月—2013年1月,佛山市第一人民医院共收治100例反流性食管炎患者。按照随机的方式将其列入观察组与对照组,每组各为50例。观察组患者应用艾普拉唑进行治疗,对照组患者则使用埃索美拉唑进行治疗。治疗8周后,对比分析两组患者的治疗有效率、治疗费用以及不良反应的发生情况。结果治疗后,两组患者的治疗有效率相比,P>0.05,比较差异不具有显著性。观察组无不良反应发生,对照组1例腹泻,1例头晕,不良反应发生率为4%(2/50),两组相比,P>0.05,比较差异不具有显著性。观察组的治疗费用为2 228.88元艾普拉唑费用+3次临床检查费用),对照组则为2 241.48元,两组相比,P>0.05,比较差异不具有显著性。对照组患者的治疗费用中包括不良反应的治疗成本,而观察组则无不良反应成本,因此观察组的治疗方法的安全性更强。观察组患者不良反应的成本要明显低于对照组患者,P<0.05,比较差异具有显著性。结论在反流性食管炎的临床治疗中,艾普拉唑的临床效果确切,且不良反应的成本明显较低,药物经济学临床优势显著,值得推广。
Objective To analyze and investigate the ilaprazole in reflux esophagitis clinical treatment of clinical effect and economic effect. Methods From January 2010 to January 2013, 100 patients with reflux esophagitis were treated in our hospital. The observation group and the control group were included in the observation group according to the random way, 50 cases in each group. Patients in the observation group application of ilaprazole treatment, the control is the use of esomeprazole for the patients in the treatment group. After 8 weeks of treatment, two groups of patients were compared with the treatment efficiency, the cost of treatment and the occurrence of adverse reactions. Results After treatment, two groups of patients with the treatment efficiency, the cost of treatment and adverse reaction incidence compared （P 〉 0. 05 ）, the difference is not significant ; the cost of adverse reactions of patients were observed to significantly lower than the control group, P 〈 0. 05, the difference is significant. Conclusion reaction of promotion. In reflux esophagitis clinical treatment, Ilaprazole clinical curative effect, and adverse cost significantly lower, pharmacoeconomics clinical significant advantages, worthy of promotion.
出处
《广东微量元素科学》
CAS
2015年第6期56-59,共4页
Trace Elements Science
