埃索美拉唑
雷贝拉唑
尿素呼气试验
医学
内科学
胃肠病学
阿莫西林
幽门螺杆菌
克拉霉素
呼吸试验
质子抑制剂泵
不利影响
幽门螺杆菌感染
抗生素
微生物学
生物
作者
I‐Chen Wu,Deng‐Chyang Wu,Ping‐I Hsu,Chien‐Yu Lu,Fang‐Jung Yu,Tsang‐En Wang,Wen‐Hsiung Chang,Jyh‐Jon Chen,Fu‐Chen Kuo,Jeng‐Yih Wu,Wen‐Ming Wang,Ming–Jong Bair
出处
期刊:Helicobacter
[Wiley]
日期:2007-11-12
卷期号:12 (6): 633-637
被引量:33
标识
DOI:10.1111/j.1523-5378.2007.00553.x
摘要
Abstract Background: Different kinds of proton pump inhibitor‐based triple therapies could result in different Helicobacter pylori eradication rates. Aim: The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy and safety of rabeprazole‐ and esomeprazole‐based triple therapy in primary treatment of H. pylori infection in Taiwan. Patients and Methods: From June 2005 to March 2007, 420 H. pylori ‐infected patients were randomly assigned to receive a 7‐day eradication therapy with either esomeprazole 40 mg daily (EAC group, n = 209) or rabeprazole 20 mg b.i.d. (RAC group, n = 211) in combination with amoxicillin 1 g b.i.d. and clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d.. Follow‐up endoscopy with biopsy was done 12–16 weeks after completion of eradication therapy. Those who refused endoscopic exams underwent 13 C‐urea breath test to assess the treatment response. Results: Intention‐to‐treat analysis revealed that the eradication rate was 89.4% in the EAC group and 90.5% in RAC groups ( p ‐value = .72). All of the subjects returned for assessment of compliance (100% in EAC group vs. 99.5% in RAC group, p ‐value = .32) and adverse events (3.83% in EAC group vs. 6.16% in RAC group, p ‐value = .27). Sixty (28.7%) and 37 (17.6%) patients in EAC and RAC group, respectively, refused endoscopy and underwent a 13 C‐urea breath test to determine the treatment effect. Conclusion: In conclusion, rabeprazole‐ and esomeprazole‐based primary therapies for H. pylori infection are comparable in efficacy and safety.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI