摘要
目的:系统评价咪唑斯汀对比氯雷他定治疗慢性荨麻疹的疗效与安全性,以为临床治疗提供循证参考。方法:计算机检索中国期刊全文数据库、万方数据库、中文科技期刊数据库,收集咪唑斯汀(试验组)对比氯雷他定(对照组)治疗慢性荨麻疹的随机对照试验(RCT),提取资料并评价质量后,采用Rev Man 5.2统计软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入11项RCT,合计975例患者。Meta分析结果显示,试验组患者7 d总有效率[OR=0.48,95%CI(0.32,0.72),P<0.000]、14 d治愈率[OR=0.60,95%CI(0.41,0.88),P=0.01]、14 d总有效率[OR=0.54,95%CI(0.34,0.86),P=0.009]、28 d治愈率[OR=0.75,95%CI(0.58,0.97),P=0.03]显著高于对照组;而两组患者7 d治愈率[OR=0.73,95%CI(0.44,1.21),P=0.22]、28 d总有效率[OR=0.72,95%CI(0.51,1.00),P=0.05]和不良反应发生率[OR=0.92,95%CI(0.65,1.28),P=0.61]比较差异无统计学意义。结论:咪唑斯汀控制慢性荨麻疹较氯雷他定快速,但随着治疗时间的延长,两者疗效与安全性相当。由于纳入研究数量较少、质量一般,该结论有待大样本、高质量的RCT进一步验证。
OBJECTIVE：To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of mizolastine verus loratadine in the treatment of chronic urticaria（CU）. METHODS：CJFD,Wanfang database,VIP Database were retrieved to collect the randomized controlled trials（RCT）of mizolastine（test group）versus loratadine（control group）in the treatment of CU. After the information collection and quality evaluation,Rev Man 5.2 was conducted for Mata-analysis. RESULTS：There were totally 11 RCTs,involving975 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that the 7 d total efficiency rate[OR=0.48,95%CI（0.32,0.72）,P〈0.000],14 d cure rate[OR=0.60,95% CI（0.41,0.88）,P=0.01],14 d total efficiency rate[OR=0.54,95% CI（0.34,0.86）,P=0.009] and 28 d cure rate[OR=0.75,95%CI（0.58,0.97）,P=0.03] in test groups were significantly higher than control group;while there were no significant differences of 7 d cure rate[OR=0.73,95% CI（0.44,1.21）,P=0.22] the 28 d total efficiency rate[OR=0.72,95% CI（0.51,1.00）,P=0.05] and ADR incidence[OR=0.92,95%CI（0.65,1.28）,P=0.61] in 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS：Mizolastine has the same efficacy and safety with loratadine in the treatment of CU,but mizolastine works faster than loratadine. Due to the small sample and low quality of included studies,it remains to be further verified by RCT with large sample and high quality.
出处
《中国药房》
CAS
北大核心
2015年第12期1666-1668,共3页
China Pharmacy
