《中国康复理论与实践》

《中国康复理论与实践》 ›› 2004, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (07): 418-420.

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

金刚烷胺单用及与复方丹参或丙炔苯丙胺合用治疗早期帕金森病的临床观察

张文记1; 陈海波1; 蒋雨平2; 陈生弟3; 张本恕4; 郑剑晖1; 秦斌1; 曾湘豫1; 蒋景文1; 王新德1   

  1. 1.卫生部北京医院神经内科,帕金森病与锥体外系疾病诊疗中心 北京市 100730;2.复旦大学上海医学院华山医院神经内科 上海市 200040;3.上海第二医科大学瑞金医院神经内科 上海市 200025;4.天津医科大学总医院神经内科 天津市 300052
  • 收稿日期:2004-05-12 出版日期:2004-07-25 发布日期:2004-07-25

Open-label and non-randomized study of therapeutic effect of amantadine monotherapy and concomitant amantadine with salvia miltiorrhiza compound or selegiline on early Parkinson's disease

ZHANG Wen-ji, CHEN Hai-bo, JIANG Yu-ping, et al   

  1. Department of Neurology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing 100730, China
  • Received:2004-05-12 Published:2004-07-25 Online:2004-07-25

PDF (PC)

被引次数

26

摘要： 目的评定单用金刚烷胺、金刚烷胺与复方丹参或丙炔苯丙胺合用对早期帕金森病(PD)患者治疗的效果和安全性。方法采用多中心、开放式分组,单用金刚烷胺组(金刚烷胺组)3 5例,金刚烷胺+复方丹参组(复方丹参组)34例,金刚烷胺+丙炔苯丙胺(丙炔苯丙胺)组29例。临床疗效采用改良Webster量表和帕金森病运动功能(MDRSPD)量表,在治疗前及以后每 2个月进行1次评定,期限为1年,观察药物的临床疗效及副作用。同时在治疗前后取血查肝肾功能、血糖及血常规、尿常规。结果Webster量表和MDRSPD量表的临床有效率,单用金刚烷胺组分别为42.9%和37.1%,复方丹参组分别为34.2 %和26.5%,丙炔苯丙胺组分别为51.1%和48.3%,经t检验差异无显著性。MDRSPD量表的临床显效率,金刚烷胺组为2.8%,复方丹参组为11.8%,丙炔苯丙胺组为27.6%。复方丹参组与金刚烷胺组相比,差异无显著性;丙炔苯丙胺组与金刚烷胺组相比,差异有显著性。不良反应的发生率在以上3组分别为27.8%、8.8%和31%,但均较轻微,持续时间短,不影响治疗。结论 3组方案对早期PD患者均有一定的疗效,金刚烷胺与丙炔苯丙胺组联合应用显效率较高。

关键词: 帕金森病, 金刚烷胺, 复方丹参, 丙炔苯丙胺, 联合用药

Abstract: Objective To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of amantadine monotherapy and concomitant amantadine with salvia miltiorrhiza compound or selegiline of the treatment of Parkinson's disease.Methods The clinical trial was performed in the multicenter, open label study. Amantadine group: 35 cases, amantadine plus salvia miltiorrhiza compound group: 34 cases and amantadine plus selegiline group: 29 cases. The clinical efficacy had been assessed with modified Webster scale (WR) and motor dysfunction rating scale for Parkinson's disease (MDRSPD) with interval of two months for one year. The safety data included blood glucose, hepatic and renal function tests, blood and urine routine tests.Results The clinical improved rates were 42.9% (WR) and 37.1% (MDRSPD) in amantadine group, respectively. The clinical score was improved in 34.2% (WR) and 26.5% (MDRSPD) in amantadine plus salvia miltiorrhiza compound group, respectively. The clinical improvement was 51.1% (WR)and 48.3% (MDRSPD) in amantadine plus selegiline group, respectively. There were no significant differences among these three groups (t-test,P>0.05). The clinical marked efficacy rates in assessment of MDRSPD were 2.8% in amantadine group, 11.8% in amantadine plus salvia miltiorrhiza compound group and 27.6% in amantadine plus selegiline group, respectively. There was significant difference between amantadine group and amantadine plus selegiline group, but no significant difference between amantadine group and amantadine plus salvia miltiorrhiza compound group. The adverse event rates were 27.8% in amantadine group, 8.8% in amantadine plus salvia miltiorrhiza compound group and 31.0% in amantadine plus selegiline group, respectively. All these events were mild, of short duration and resolved without treatment. Conclusion There was some efficacy rate in all three groups. Comparing with amantadine group, there was higher marked efficacy rate in amantadine plus selegiline group.

Key words: Parkinson's disease, amantadine monotherapy, salvia miltiorrhiza compound, selegiline, drug combination