阿伐斯汀和氯雷他定治疗慢性荨麻疹的疗效比较

Comparison of oral acrivastine versus loratadine for the treatment of chronic urticaria

目的比较阿伐斯汀和氯雷他定治疗慢性荨麻疹的疗效。方法110例慢性荨麻疹患者随机分为两组，阿伐斯汀组56例口服阿伐斯汀胶囊8mg，每天3次，氯雷他定组口服氯雷他定片10mg，每天1次，疗程28d，服药后第7、14、28天观察结果。结果治疗总有效率两组差异无统计学意义[73．5％（25／34）比67．6％（25／37），P〉0．05]，但治疗7d时，阿伐斯汀组无效的患者明显少于氯雷他们定组[5．9％（2／34）比32．4％（12／37），P〈0．05）]；治疗7d、14d时，阿伐斯汀组风团大小和发作持续时间症状积分下降指数高于氯雷他定组（P〈0．05）。患者及医师对阿伐斯汀的总体评价较好。二组不良反应发生率分别为[5．4％（3／56）和5．6％（3／54），19〉0．05]，差异无统计学意义。结论阿伐斯汀治疗慢性荨麻疹安全有效。

Objective To compare the efficacy of oral acrivastine versus loratadine for the treatment of chronic urticaria. Methods Totally, 110 patients with chronic urticaria were randomly divided into 2 groups： acrivastine group （n = 56） treated with oral acrivastine capsules 8 mg thrice a day for 28 days, loratadine group （n = 54） treated with oral loratadine tablets 10 mg once every day for 28 days. Therapeutic effects were evaluated on day 7, 14 and 28 after the start of treatment. Results No significant differences were observed in the total response rate between the acrivastine group and loratadine group （73.5%（25/34） vs. 67.6% （25/37）, P 〉 0.05）, but the proportion of unresponsive patients was significantly lower in the acrivastine group than in the loratadine group （5.9%（2/34） vs. 32.4% （12/37）, P 〈 0.05） on day 7. On day 7 and 14, the acrivastine group showed a significant increase in symptom score reducing indices （SSRIs） for wheal size and duration of episodes compared with the loratadine group （both P 〈 0.05）. Both the patients and doctors were satisfied with the efficacy of acrivastine. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the acrivastine group and loratadine group （5.4% （3/56） vs. 5.6% （3/54）, P 〉 0.05）. Conclusion Aerivastine is safe and effective for the treatment of chronic urticaria.