利巴韦林和干扰素α1在小儿手足口病中的应用对比

Comparison of the application of ribavirin and interferon α1 in children with hand foot and mouth disease

目的对比利巴韦林和干扰素α1在小儿手足口病中的应用效果。方法选择2017年6月~2018年6月我院收治的120例手足口病患儿,按治疗给药情况分为利巴韦林组、干扰素组和对照组,每组40例。对照组给予对症支持治疗;利巴韦林组患儿在对照组基础上静脉滴注利巴韦林10.0mg/(kg·d);干扰素组在对照组基础上肌肉注射干扰素α1b0.5μg/(kg·d),疗程均为7d。观察比较三组患儿治疗效果、退热时间、皮疹消退和口腔疱疹愈合时间、住院时间及不良反应发生情况。结果利巴韦林组和干扰素组患儿治疗有效率均高于对照组,其中扰素组治疗有效率高于利巴韦林组;利巴韦林组和干扰素组的退热时间、皮疹消退和口腔疱疹愈合时间、住院时间短于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),其中干扰素组的退热时间、皮疹消退和口腔疱疹愈合时间、住院时间短于利巴韦林组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);利巴韦林组的不良反应发生率为5.00%低于对照组的30.00%,干扰素组的不良反应发生率为2.50%低于对照组的30.00%,利巴韦林组不良反应发生率与干扰素组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论干扰素α1在小儿手足口病中较利巴韦林的显著疗效,但两者不良反应发生率低均具有较高安全性,可改善患儿症状,缩短患儿症状消退时间和住院时间,值得临床推广应用。

Objective To compare the application effect of ribavirin and interferon α1 on children with hand foot and mouth disease. Methods 120 children with hand foot and mouth disease who were admitted and treated in our hospital from June 2017 to June 2018 were selected and they were divided into ribavirin group, interferon group and the control group according to the medication, with 40 cases in each group. Children in the control group were given symptomatic support therapy. Children in the ribavirin group were treated by intravenous drip of ribavirin 10.0mg/(kg·d) on the basis of the control group. The interferon group was treated with intramuscular injection of interferon α1b 0.5 g/(kg·d) on the basis of the control group. The course of treatments was all seven days. The therapeutic effect, antipyretic time, rash disappearance time, healing time of oral herpes, hospital stay and adverse reactions of children in three groups were observed and compared. Results The effective rate of treatment in the ribavirin group and the interferon group was higher than that of the control group. The effective rate of interferon group was higher than that of ribavirin group. The antipyretic time, rash disappearance time, healing time of oral herpes and hospital stay in the ribavirin group and the interferon group were all shorter than those of the control group. The differences were statistically significant. The antipyretic time, rash disappearance time, healing time of oral herpes and hospital stay in the interferon group were shorter than those in the ribavirin group. Above comparison has statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the ribavirin group was 5.00%, lower than that in the control group 30.00%. The incidence of adverse reactions in interferon group was 2.50%, lower than that in the control group 30.00%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between ribavirin group and interferon group (P > 0.05). Conclusion Interferon α1 is more effective than ribavirin in the treatment of children with hand foot and mouth disease but both of them have low incidence of adverse reactions and higher safety. It can improve the symptoms of children, shorten the remission time of symptoms and hospitalization stay, which is worthy of clinical promotion and application.