摘要
目的系统评价特比萘芬与伊曲康唑治疗甲真菌病的有效性。方法计算机检索Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE,Springer Datebase,CNKI,纳入所有比较特比萘芬与伊曲康唑治疗甲真菌病的随机对照试验(RCT)。由2名研究者共同独立提取资料并评估纳入研究质量。采用Cochrane协作网提供的RevMan4.2软件对试验数据进行统计分析。结果最终纳入6个RCT,其中4个特比萘芬250mg/d连续疗法与伊曲康唑200mg/d连续疗法、2个特比萘芬250mg/d连续疗法与伊曲康唑400mg/d冲击疗法治疗甲真菌病。Meta分析结果显示特比萘芬与伊曲康唑疗效的差异有统计学意义,合并后前者RR=1.25,95%CI(1.06～1.48),后者RR=2.02,95%CI(1.47～2.78)。均未报道特比萘芬和伊曲康唑引起的严重系统性不良反应。结论现有临床证据表明,特比萘芬治疗甲真菌病的疗效优于伊曲康唑。
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of terbinafine and itraconazole in the treatment of onychomycosis. Methods The electronic databases were searched from the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Springer Datebase,CNKl. All the randomized controlled trials （RCT） which had compared the efficacy in the treatment of onychomycosis between terbinafine and itraconazole were included into this meta-analysis. Two authors independently reviewed the data and assessed the quality. The data were input and analyzed by Revman 4.2 software. Results Six high quality RCTs were included into this Meta-analysis. Four of them were continuous terbinafine and itraconazole therapy and the other two were continuous terbinafine and itraconazole pulse therapy. The respective Meta-analysis showed that there were significant difference between the efficacy of Terbinafine and hraconazole. The former combined RR was 1.25 and its 95% confidence interval was be- tween 1.06 - 1.48, the latter combined RR was 2.02 and its 95% confidence interval was between 1.47 2.78. No reports of serious systematical adverse reaction were presented. Conclusion Terbinafine is more effective than itraconazole in the treatment of onychomycosis.
出处
《中国皮肤性病学杂志》
CAS
北大核心
2010年第11期989-991,共3页
The Chinese Journal of Dermatovenereology
基金
广东省科技计划项目(粤科计字[2001]281-5)
