PDF《桂枝汤合玉屏风散治疗慢性荨麻疹患者的》

中国现代医生

2019 年5月第

57 卷第

14 期CHINA MODERN DOCTOR Vol.

57 No.

14 May

2019 窑论 著窑 慢性荨麻疹渊chronic urticaria袁CU冤是皮肤科常见 变态反应性疾病袁发病率高[1] 遥 指在各种因素刺激下袁 机体皮肤尧黏膜尧血管等部位发生暂时性炎性充血及 组织内水肿袁且每周发作

2 次及以上袁病程超过

6 周[2] 遥CU 临床中可见患者躯干尧面部及四肢不定时出现风 团及斑块等袁以皮肤发痒尧皮疹尧头痛及发热等为主要 表现袁严重影响患者生活质量[3] 遥环境尧饮食尧花粉及自 身免疫等相互作用袁机体免疫功能失衡袁正常免疫机 制遭到破坏袁进而导致 CU 的发生[4] 遥 临床中袁西医以 口服抗过敏药脱敏治疗为主袁可有效缓解临床症状袁 桂枝汤合玉屏风散治疗慢性荨麻疹患者的 临床疗效及对血清总 IgE 影响研究 骆天功 青海省交通医院药剂科袁青海西宁

810000 [摘要] 目的 探讨桂枝汤合玉屏风散治疗慢性荨麻疹患者的临床疗效及对血清总 IgE 的影响遥 方法 选择

2017 年3月耀2018 年3月我院收治的

88 例患者随机分为观察组渊n=44冤和对照组渊n=44冤曰对照组采用盐酸西替利嗪片治疗袁 观察组采用桂枝汤合玉屏风散加味治疗遥观察比较两组临床疗效尧血清总 IgE 水平及 SF-36 评分遥 结果 观察组 总有效率为 79.55%袁高于对照组的 68.18%渊字2 =1.472袁P=0.225冤曰两组疗效整体比较有统计学差异渊Z=-2.116袁P=0.034冤遥 治疗后袁两组血清总 IgE 水平与治疗前比较均显著降低渊t=34.617袁P=0.000曰t=20.153袁P=0.000冤曰且观察 组血清总 IgE 水平显著低于对照组渊t=-9.672袁P=0.000冤曰两组 SF-36 评分与治疗前比较均显著升高渊t=-12.586袁P=0.000曰t=-8.677袁P=0.000冤曰观察组 SF-36 评分为渊78.26依12.37冤分显著高于对照组的渊69.91依12.86冤分渊t=3.104袁P=0.003冤遥 结论 桂枝汤合玉屏风散治疗 CU 临床疗效显著袁可有效降低血清总 IgE 水平袁提高患者生活质量袁值 得推广应用遥 [关键词] 桂枝汤曰玉屏风散曰慢性荨麻疹曰营卫失和曰血清总 IgE [中图分类号] R289 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 1673-9701渊2019冤14-0009-03 Study on the clinical effect of Guizhi decoction combined with Yupingfeng powder in the treatment of patients with chronic urticaria and its effect on serum total IgE LUO Tiangong Department of Pharmacy袁Qinghai Provincial Jiaotong Hospital袁Xining 810000袁China [Abstract] Objective To investigate the clinical effect of Guizhi decoction combined with Yupingfeng powder in the treatment of chronic urticaria and its effect on serum total IgE. Methods

88 patients who were admitted to our hospital from March

2017 to March

2018 were selected and randomly assigned to the observation group渊n=44冤and the control group渊n=44冤. The control group was given cetirizine hydrochloride tablets for treatment, and the observation group was given Guizhi decoction combined with Yupingfeng powder for treatment. The clinical efficacy, serum total IgE level and SF-36 score were observed and compared between the two groups. Results The total effective rate in the observation group was 79.55%, which was higher than that in the control group渊68.18%冤渊字2 =1.472, P=0.225冤;

there was a statisti鄄cally significant difference in the total effective rate between the two groups渊Z=-2.116, P=0.034冤. After treatment, the serum total IgE levels in the two groups were significantly lower than those before treatment渊t=34.617, P=0.000;