Soedin K, Syukran O K, Fadillah A, Sidabutar P
Pharmatherapeutica. 1985;4(4):251-4.
A study was carried out in 80 patients with acute intestinal amoebiasis to compare the efficacy of treatment with a single oral dose of 2 g secnidazole and a 5-day course of 750 mg tetracycline plus 1 g clioquinol per day. Patients were allocated at random into one or other treatment group and returned for clinical assessment and microscopic examination of stools for the presence of the trophozoite or haematophagous form of Entamoeba histolytica on Days 1 to 7, 14, 21 and 28. The results showed that secnidazole produced significantly faster and more effective treatment than tetracycline/clioquinol. At the end of the follow-up period, 7 of the 40 patients in the tetracycline/clioquinol group were classified as 'parasitological' failures but there were none in the secnidazole group. Moreover, there were no cases of relapse or persistence of clinical signs in the secnidazole-treated patients. Both treatments were well tolerated.
对80例急性肠道阿米巴病患者进行了一项研究，以比较单次口服2克塞克硝唑与每天服用750毫克四环素加1克氯碘羟喹，疗程为5天的治疗效果。患者被随机分配到其中一个治疗组，并在第1至7天、第14天、第21天和第28天返回进行临床评估以及粪便显微镜检查，以确定是否存在溶组织内阿米巴滋养体或吸血形式。结果显示，塞克硝唑的治疗起效明显更快且更有效，优于四环素/氯碘羟喹。在随访期结束时，四环素/氯碘羟喹组的40名患者中有7名被归类为“寄生虫学”治疗失败，但塞克硝唑组没有。此外，接受塞克硝唑治疗的患者没有复发或临床症状持续的情况。两种治疗的耐受性都良好。
