Suppr超能文献

人智学疗法与传统疗法治疗急性呼吸道和耳部感染的前瞻性疗效研究。

Anthroposophic vs. conventional therapy of acute respiratory and ear infections: a prospective outcomes study.

作者信息

Hamre Harald J, Fischer Michael, Heger Marianne, Riley David, Haidvogl Max, Baars Erik, Bristol Eileen, Evans Michael, Schwarz Reinhard, Kiene Helmut

机构信息

Institute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology, Freiburg, Germany.

出版信息

Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2005 Apr;117(7-8):256-68. doi: 10.1007/s00508-005-0344-9.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Acute respiratory and ear symptoms are frequently treated with antibiotics. Anthroposophic treatment of these symptoms relies primarily on anthroposophic medications.

OBJECTIVE

To compare anthroposophic treatment to conventional treatment of acute respiratory and ear symptoms regarding clinical outcome, medication use and safety, and patient satisfaction.

DESIGN

Prospective, non-randomised comparison of outcomes in patients self-selected to anthroposophic or conventional therapy under real-world conditions.

SETTING

29 primary care practices in Austria, Germany, Netherlands, UK, and USA. PARTICIPANTS AND THERAPY: 1016 consecutive outpatients aged > or = 1 month, consulting an anthroposophic (n = 715 A-patients) or conventional physician (n = 301 C-patients) with a chief complaint of acute (< or = 7 days) sore throat, ear pain, sinus pain, runny nose or cough. Patients were treated according to the physician's discretion.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Patients' self-report of treatment outcome (complete recovery/major improvement/slight to moderate improvement/no change/deterioration) at Day 14.

RESULTS

Most common chief complaints were cough (39.9% of A-patients vs. 33.9% of C-patients, p = 0.0772), sore throat (26.3% vs. 23.3%, p=0.3436), and ear pain (20.0% vs. 18.9%, p=0.7302). Baseline chief complaint severity was severe or very severe in 60.5% of A-patients and 53.3% of C-patients (p=0.0444), mean severity (0-4) of complaint-related symptoms was 1.3 +/- 0.7 vs. 1.2 +/- 0.6 (p=0.5197). During the 28-day follow-up antibiotics were prescribed to 5.5% of A-patients and 33.6% of C-patients (p<0.0001), anthroposophic medicines were prescribed to all A-patients and no C-patient.

OUTCOMES

Improvement within 24 hours occurred in 30.9% (221/715) of A-patients and 16.6% (50/301) of C-patients (p<0.0001), improvement within 3 days in 73.1% and 57.1% (p<0.0001). At Day 7 complete recovery or major improvement was reported by 77.1% of A-patients and 66.1% of C-patients (p=0.0004), at Day 14 by 89.7% and 84.4% (p=0.0198). Complete recovery rates at Day 7 were 30.5% and 23.3% (p<0.0001); at Day 14 they were 64.2% and 49.5% (p<0.0001). 69.9% of A-patients and 60.5% of C-patients were very satisfied with their physician (p=0.0043); 95.7% and 83.4% would choose the same therapy again for their chief complaint (p<0.0001). After adjustment for country, gender, age, chief complaint, duration of complaint, previous episode of complaint within last year, and baseline symptom severity, odds ratios favoured the A-group for all these outcomes. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 2.7% of A-patients and 6.0% of C-patients (p=0.0157).

CONCLUSION

Compared to conventional treatment, anthroposophic treatment of primary care patients with acute respiratory and ear symptoms had more favourable outcomes, lower antibiotic prescription rates, less adverse drug reactions, and higher patient satisfaction.

摘要

背景

急性呼吸道和耳部症状通常使用抗生素治疗。这些症状的人智学疗法主要依赖于人智学药物。

目的

比较人智学疗法与传统疗法在治疗急性呼吸道和耳部症状方面的临床疗效、药物使用及安全性以及患者满意度。

设计

在现实条件下对自我选择接受人智学或传统疗法的患者进行前瞻性、非随机对照研究。

地点

奥地利、德国、荷兰、英国和美国的29家初级保健机构。

参与者与治疗

1016例年龄≥1个月的连续门诊患者,因急性(≤7天)咽痛、耳痛、鼻窦痛、流涕或咳嗽为主诉,就诊于人智学医生(n = 715例A组患者)或传统医生(n = 301例C组患者)。患者根据医生的判断接受治疗。

主要结局

第14天患者对治疗结局的自我报告(完全康复/显著改善/轻度至中度改善/无变化/恶化)。

结果

最常见的主诉是咳嗽(A组患者中占39.9%,C组患者中占33.9%,p = 0.0772)、咽痛(26.3%对23.3%,p = 0.3436)和耳痛(20.0%对18.9%,p = 0.7302)。60.5%的A组患者和53.3%的C组患者基线主诉严重程度为重度或极重度(p = 0.0444),与主诉相关症状的平均严重程度(0 - 4分)分别为1.3±0.7和1.2±0.6(p = 0.5197)。在28天的随访期间,5.5%的A组患者和33.6%的C组患者使用了抗生素(p<0.0001),所有A组患者均使用了人智学药物,C组患者未使用。

结局

24小时内症状改善的A组患者占30.9%(221/(715),C组患者占16.6%(50/301)(p<0.0001),3天内改善的分别为73.1%和57.1%(p<0.0001)。第7天报告完全康复或显著改善的A组患者占77.1%,C组患者占66.1%(p = 0.0004),第14天分别为89.7%和84.4%(p = 0.0198)。第7天的完全康复率分别为30.5%和23.3%(p<0.0001);第14天分别为64.2%和49.5%(p<0.0001)。69.9%的A组患者和60.5%的C组患者对其医生非常满意(p = 0.0043);95.7%的A组患者和83.4%的C组患者会再次选择相同的疗法治疗其主诉(p<0.0001)。在对国家、性别、年龄、主诉、主诉持续时间、去年内既往发作情况以及基线症状严重程度进行校正后,所有这些结局的优势比均有利于A组。A组患者中有2.7%报告了药物不良反应,C组患者中有6.0%(p = 0.0157)。

结论

与传统治疗相比,人智学疗法治疗初级保健中急性呼吸道和耳部症状的患者具有更有利的结局、更低的抗生素处方率、更少的药物不良反应以及更高的患者满意度。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验