摘要
目的 采用Meta分析比较伐昔洛韦（VACV）与阿昔洛韦（ACV）治疗带状疱疹的疗效及安全性.方法 计算机检索The Cochrane Library、PubMed、Embase、Medline、SCI外文数据库,检索中国知网、万方数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库中文数据库,检索文献时限为建库至2016年5月;收集采用VACV与ACV治疗带状疱疹的随机对照试验.由2名资深评价者严格按照纳入与排除标准选择文献、提取资料和评价质量,应用RevMan 5.2软件进行Meta分析.结果 纳入13个随机对照试验,共1 109例患者.Meta分析结果显示：口服VACV与口服ACV治疗有效率组间差异有统计学意义,亚组分析口服VACV与静脉滴注ACV治疗带状疱疹的有效率,结果显示两组差异无统计学意义;VACV组比ACV组疼痛缓解时间短,差异有统计学意义;VACV组止疱时间短于ACV组,比较差异有统计学意义,亚组分析口服VACV与静脉滴注ACV治疗带状疱疹止疱时间,两组差异无统计学意义;VACV组结痂时间短于ACV组,比较差异有统计学意义,亚组分析口服VACV与静脉滴注ACV治疗带状疱疹止疱时间,结果显示两组差异无统计学意义;VACV组后遗神经痛发生率低于ACV组,差异有统计意义.结论 口服VACV治疗带状疱疹疗效优于口服ACV,而口服VACV与静脉滴注ACV在有效率、止疱时间、结痂时间方面效果相当.
Objective To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of valaciclovir（VACV） versus acyclovir（ACV） for the treatment of herpes zoster with Meta-analysis.Methods Databases including the Cochrane library,PubMed,Embase,Medline,SCI,CNKI,Wanfang Data,CBM were searched to collect the randomized controlled trails （RCTs） regarding VACV versus ACV for herpes zoster.The retrieval time was from early available time to May 2016.The search was followed the inclusion and exclusion criteria.The data were collected and evaluated by 2 reviewers independently.The Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2 software.Results 13 RCTs involving 1 109 patients were included.The results of Meta-analysis showed that there were significant difference in efficacy,pain relief time,herpes stop time,scab time and PHN between the VACV and ACV groups.Subgroups analysis showed there were no significant difference in efficacy,herpes stop time,scab time between the oral VACV and intravenous ACV subgroups.Conclusion Oral VACV is superior to oral ACV in the treatment of herpes zoster.However there were no differences in herpes stop time,scab time between oral VACV group and intravenous ACV group.
出处
《实用疼痛学杂志》
2016年第6期428-434,共7页
Pain Clinic Journal
