摘要
目的对比两种不同阿德福韦酯制剂治疗e抗原阳性慢性乙型肝炎的疗效。方法将本院收治的86例e抗原阳性慢性乙型肝炎患者随机均分为治疗1组与治疗2组,分别给予两种不同阿德福韦酯制剂治疗,治疗1组给予葛兰素史克(天津)有限公司出品的阿德福韦酯片,商品名为贺维力,治疗2组给予福建广生堂药业有限公司出品的阿德福韦酯片,商品名为阿甘定,两药用法及用量均相同,于治疗6个月及治疗24个月时对两组患者的ALT复常率、HBV-DNA阴转率及HBeAg/抗HBe血清转换率进行对比,同时比较不良反应发生率及治疗用药费用情况。结果两组治疗6个月与24个月时的疗效及不良反应发生率差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗2组的24个月用药费用显著低于治疗1组(P<0.01)。结论两种阿德福韦酯制剂疗效相当,不良反应发生率无明显差异,但治疗2组使用的更加经济实用。
Objective To compare the efficacy of two adefovir dipivoxil preparations for treatment of e antigen positive chronic hepatitis B. Methods Eighty-six cases of patients with e antigen positive chronic hepatitis B were randomly and averagely divided into treatment group 1 and treatment group 2, who were given two different formulations of adefovir dipivoxil therapy, treatment group 1 were given adefovir dipivoxil tablets produced by GlaxoSmithKline Tianjin Co., Ltd. trade name was Geoffrey force, treatment group 2 were given adefovir dipivoxil tablets produced by Fujian the Guangsheng Tang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. trade name was Again, the two had the same method and amount. ALT normalization and HBV- DNA negative rate and HBeAg / anti-HBe seroconversion rates of two groups patients when 6 months and 24 months after treatment were compared, at the same time, the incidence of adverse reactions and treatment of drug costs were compared. Results The efficacy and the incidence of adverse reactions 5 months and 24 months after treatment of two groups had no significant difference （P 〉 0.05）; 24 monthly drug costs of treatment group 2 were significantly lower than that of the treat- ment group 1 （P 〈 0.01）. Conclusion The efficacy of two adefovir dipivoxil preparations is equivalent, the incidence of adverse reactions has no significant difference, but treatment group 2 using agam is more economical and practical
出处
《中国当代医药》
2012年第22期86-87,共2页
China Modern Medicine
关键词
E抗原阳性
慢性乙型肝炎
阿德福韦酯
疗效比较
e antigen-positive
Chronic hepatitis B
Adefovir dipivoxil
Efficacy comparison
