机构地区:[1]惠州市中医医院药学部,广东惠州516001 [2]惠州市中医医院心病科,广东惠州516001
出 处:《海南医学》2021年第19期2499-2502,共4页Hainan Medical Journal
基 金:广东省惠州市科技计划项目(编号:19041515473030)。
摘 要:目的观察四黄冰舒膏治疗急性痛风性关节炎的临床疗效。方法选择2019年7月至2020年7月在惠州市中医医院治疗的60例急性痛风性关节炎患者作为研究对象,按随机数表法分为观察组和对照组,每组30例。对照组在常规治疗基础上给予扶他林软膏外敷治疗,观察组在常规治疗基础上给予四黄冰舒膏外敷治疗,均持续治疗7 d。比较两组患者的治疗效果,治疗前后的血清血尿酸(BUA)、超敏C反应蛋白(hs-CRP)、红细胞沉降率(ESR)水平,以及治疗前、治疗后3 d、7 d时的关节疼痛、肿胀评分,观察治疗期间不良反应发生情况。结果治疗后,观察组患者的临床疗效总有效率为93.33%,明显高于对照组的73.33%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗后,观察组患者的BUA、hs-CRP、ESR水平分别为(459.93±37.61)μmol/L、(9.50±1.42) mg/L、(16.95±2.36) mm/h,与对照组的(464.18±40.5)μmol/L、(10.02±1.28) mg/L、(17.51±2.06) mm/h比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗3 d后,观察组患者的关节疼痛、肿胀评分分别为(3.11±0.56)分、(1.31±0.29)分,明显低于对照组的(3.92±0.64)分、(1.59±0.32)分,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗7 d后,观察组患者的关节疼痛、肿胀评分分别为(1.56±0.30)分、(0.74±0.15)分,明显低于对照组的(2.11±0.47)分、(1.03±0.18)分,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组和对照组患者的不良反应总发生率分别为3.33%和6.67%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论四黄冰舒膏治疗缓解急性痛风性关节炎疗效显著,可有效缓解关节疼痛、肿胀情况,安全性好,值得推广应用。Objective To observe the clinical efficacy of Sihuang Bingshu Ointment in the treatment of acute gouty arthritis. Methods Sixty patients with acute gouty arthritis in Huizhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine from July 2019 to July 2020 were selected as the research objects. They were divided into the observation group and control group by random number table method, with 30 patients in each group. The control group was treated by external application of Votalin ointment on the basis of conventional treatment, and the observation group was treated by external application of Sihuang Bingshu Ointment on the basis of conventional treatment, both for 7 days. The therapeutic effects of the two groups were compared, and the changes of serum uric acid(BUA), high sensitivity C-reactive protein(hs-CRP), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate(ESR) before and after treatment, and the changes of joint pain and swelling scores before treatment, 3 days and 7 days after treatment, and the adverse reactions was observed during the treatment. Results After treatment, the total effective rate in the observation group was 93.33%, significantly higher than 73.33% of the control group(P<0.05);after treatment, the BUA, hs-CRP, and ESR levels in the observation group were(459.93±37.61) μmol/L,(9.50±1.42) mg/L,(16.95±2.36) mm/h, as compared with(464.18±40.5) μmol/L,(10.02±1.28) mg/L,(17.51±2.06) mm/h in the control group(P>0.05). Three days after treatment, the joint pain and swelling scores in the observation group were(3.11±0.56) points and(1.31±0.29) points, which were significantly lower than(3.92±0.64) points and(1.59±0.32) points of control group(P<0.05);7 days after treatment, the joint pain and swelling scores in the observation group were(1.56±0.30) points and(0.74±0.15) points, which were significantly lower than(2.11±0.47) points and(1.03±0.18) points of control group(P<0.05). The total incidences of adverse reactions were 3.33% in the observation group and 6.67% in the control group, and the difference was
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...