Li Hai-tao, Shan Jiao-yu, Shao Ying-mei, Tuergan Aili, Ayifuhan Ahan, Ran Bo, Wen Hao
Hepatobiliary and Hydatid Department, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2011 Jul;19(7):532-6. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-3418.2011.07.015.
To explore and compare the clinical effect and safety of liposomal albendazole (L-ABZ) and tablet-albendazole (T-ABZ) in the treatment of cystic echinococcosis (CE1, CE2, and CE3).
A total of 269 cases treated with cystic echinococcosis (CE) in Xinjiang Medical University the First Affiliated Hospital from 1998 to 2008 were reviewed. 51 cases were excluded and 218 cases were enrolled in this research by retrospective case-control method. Among 110 cases were treated with L-ABZ and 108 cases were treated with T-ABZ for short-term (3 months) and long-term courses (6 months) respectively. The effects and safety of the two medicines were compared by analyzing the clinical symptoms, imaging check and serologic test results.
In short-term effect evaluation, the total effective rates and curative rates of L-ABZ group and T-ABZ group were 77.9% and 49.1% vs 28.4% and 13.9%, respectively. The effects of L-ABZ group was better than that of T-ABZ group, with remarkable difference in total effective rates and curative rates (x2 value was 19.581, 6.877, respectively, P is less than 0.05). In long-term effect evaluation, the total effective rates and curative rates of L-ABZ and T-ABZ group were 81.7% and 49.0% vs 47.6% and 20.6%, respectively. There was significant difference between L-ABZ group and T-ABZ group in total effective rates and curative rates (x2 value was 20.977, 15.049, respectively, P is less than 0.05). In T-ABZ group the short-term curative rates were 50.0% (15/30), 8.8% (8/91) and 33.3% (7/21) respectively in CE1, CE2, and CE3, the short-term total effective rates were 56.7% (17/30), 35.2% (32/91) and 61.9% (13/21) respectively in CE1, CE2, and CE3. The long-term curative rates were 58.3% (7/12), 28.6% (12/42) and 70.0% (7/10) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the long-term total effective rates were 75.0% (9/12), 69.0% (29/42) and 100.0% (10/10) respectively in CE1, CE2, and CE3. When compared with CE2, differences existed in CE1 (x2 = 24.887, 4.329; P is less than 0.05) and CE3 groups (x2 = 8.860, 5.076; P is less than 0.05) in terms of short-term effects. In L-ABZ group, the short-term curative rates were 47.4% (18/38), 12.2% (12/98) and 61.5% (8/13) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the short-term total effective rates were 92.1% (35/38), 65.3% (64/98) and 92.3% (12/13) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the long-term curative rates were 79.3% (23/29), 35.9% (23/64) and 50.0% (3/6) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the long-term total effective rates were 96.6% (28/29), 84.4% (54/64) and 100% (6/6) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3. When compared with CE2, there were significant differences in CE1 (x2 = 19.648, 9.930; P is less than 0.05) and CE3 groups (x2 = 18.880, 3.876; P is less than 0.05) in terms of short-term effect. In L-ABZ and T-ABZ groups, the drug-related adverse effects were 11.1% (12/108) and 12.7% (14/110) respectively without significant difference (x2 = 0.155, P is more than 0.05).
L-ABZ and T-ABZ were both effective anti-echinococcosis drugs without dominant side-effects. The clinical effect of L-ABZ was better than that of T-ABZ.
探讨并比较脂质体阿苯达唑（L-ABZ）与阿苯达唑片（T-ABZ）治疗囊型包虫病（CE1、CE2和CE3）的临床疗效及安全性。
回顾性分析1998年至2008年在新疆医科大学第一附属医院接受治疗的269例囊型包虫病患者资料。排除51例，采用回顾性病例对照研究方法纳入218例患者。其中110例患者接受L-ABZ治疗，108例患者接受T-ABZ治疗，分别进行短期（3个月）和长期疗程（6个月）治疗。通过分析临床症状、影像学检查及血清学检测结果，比较两种药物的疗效及安全性。
短期疗效评估中，L-ABZ组和T-ABZ组的总有效率分别为77.9%和49.1%，治愈率分别为28.4%和13.9%。L-ABZ组疗效优于T-ABZ组，总有效率和治愈率差异有统计学意义（x²值分别为19.581、6.877，P<0.05）。长期疗效评估中，L-ABZ组和T-ABZ组的总有效率分别为81.7%和49.0%，治愈率分别为47.6%和20.6%。L-ABZ组与T-ABZ组的总有效率和治愈率差异有统计学意义（x²值分别为20.977、15.049，P<0.05）。T-ABZ组中，CE1、CE2和CE3的短期治愈率分别为50.0%（15/30）、8.8%（8/91）和33.3%（7/21），短期总有效率分别为56.7%（17/30）、35.2%（32/91）和61.9%（13/21）。CE1、CE2和CE3的长期治愈率分别为58.3%（7/12）、28.6%（12/42）和70.0%（7/10），长期总有效率分别为75.0%（9/12）、69.0%（29/42）和100.0%（10/10）。与CE2相比，CE1组（x²=24.887、4.329；P<0.05）和CE3组（x²=8.860、5.076；P<0.05）短期疗效存在差异。L-ABZ组中，CE1、CE2和CE3的短期治愈率分别为47.4%（18/38）、12.2%（12/98）和61.5%（8/13），短期总有效率分别为92.1%（35/38）、65.3%（64/98）和92.3%（12/13），长期治愈率分别为79.3%（23/29）、35.9%（23/64）和50.0%（3/6），长期总有效率分别为96.6%（28/29）、84.4%（54/64）和100%（6/6）。与CE2相比，CE1组（x²=19.648、9.930；P<0.05）和CE3组（x²=18.880、3.876；P<0.05）短期疗效存在显著差异。L-ABZ组和T-ABZ组的药物相关不良反应发生率分别为11.1%（12/108）和12.7%（14/110），差异无统计学意义（x²=0.155，P>0.05）。
L-ABZ和T-ABZ均为有效的抗包虫病药物，无明显副作用。L-ABZ的临床疗效优于T-ABZ。
