趙衛(wèi)東, 鐘曉琴, 莊新英, 紀(jì)紅梅, 李安慶, 李鑫鑫, 王瑞才, 朱建友, 李延青
濱州醫(yī)學(xué)院附屬臨淄區(qū)人民醫(yī)院 1.消化內(nèi)科; 2.病理科,山東 臨淄 255400; 3.山東大學(xué)齊魯醫(yī)院消化內(nèi)科
埃索美拉唑和替普瑞酮對(duì)功能性消化不良影響的對(duì)比研究
趙衛(wèi)東1, 鐘曉琴1, 莊新英1, 紀(jì)紅梅1, 李安慶1, 李鑫鑫1, 王瑞才2, 朱建友2, 李延青3
濱州醫(yī)學(xué)院附屬臨淄區(qū)人民醫(yī)院 1.消化內(nèi)科; 2.病理科,山東 臨淄 255400; 3.山東大學(xué)齊魯醫(yī)院消化內(nèi)科
目的 探討埃索美拉唑和替普瑞酮對(duì)H.pylori陰性功能性消化不良(functional dyspepsia, FD)患者癥狀評(píng)分及胃腸道嗜酸粒細(xì)胞的影響。方法 基線時(shí)對(duì)FD患者進(jìn)行腹部癥狀問卷調(diào)查、胃鏡檢查、病理學(xué)檢查、H.pylori檢測。對(duì)H.pylori陰性者行埃索美拉唑或替普瑞酮治療。第2周和第6周分別行腹部癥狀問卷調(diào)查,部分患者第6周末復(fù)查胃鏡檢查及病理學(xué)檢查。結(jié)果 第2周末時(shí)埃索美拉唑組和替普瑞酮組的癥狀均較基線時(shí)明顯改善。第6周末時(shí)埃索美拉唑組癥狀評(píng)分較基線時(shí)也明顯改善,但替普瑞酮組未見顯著改變。第6周末時(shí)埃索美拉唑組較替普瑞酮組的癥狀顯著減輕。治療前后埃索美拉唑組與替普瑞酮組在胃十二指腸嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)及集簇率比較差異均無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)。結(jié)論 埃索美拉唑?qū).pylori陰性FD患者的治療效果優(yōu)于替普瑞酮。埃索美拉唑和替普瑞酮均不影響H.pylori陰性FD患者的胃十二指腸嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)及集簇率。
功能性消化不良;嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞;幽門螺桿菌;藥物療法
功能性消化不良( functional dyspepsia, FD)從病理生理機(jī)制上來講很可能是一種異質(zhì)性疾病[1]。Lee等[2]概述了十二指腸的病理生理異常與FD的關(guān)系,認(rèn)為FD的發(fā)生與十二指腸對(duì)酸、脂質(zhì)的異常反應(yīng)及十二指腸的免疫激活有關(guān)。十二指腸嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞的激活及脫顆??赡苁荈D的重要發(fā)病機(jī)制,這些強(qiáng)效的效應(yīng)細(xì)胞可能會(huì)成為這些相關(guān)疾病有價(jià)值的治療靶點(diǎn)[3]。質(zhì)子泵抑制劑、促動(dòng)力藥、根除H.pylori及抗抑郁藥是治療FD的常用選擇[4],但對(duì)FD的治療一直以來都頗具挑戰(zhàn)性,好轉(zhuǎn)率常常不到60%[5]。
1.1 一般資料 收集2011年3月-2012年8月在濱州醫(yī)學(xué)院附屬臨淄區(qū)人民醫(yī)院門診就診的FD患者共215例,男77例,女138例,年齡(54.2±12.8)歲(18~70歲)。納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn):所有FD患者均符合功能性胃腸疾病羅馬Ⅲ診斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[6],均無手術(shù)史及過敏性疾病史,入組前4周未應(yīng)用抗酸劑、制酸劑、促胃腸動(dòng)力藥、非甾體類抗炎藥,肝功、腎功、血糖、電解質(zhì)化驗(yàn)及腹部B超、胃鏡檢查均無代謝性和器質(zhì)性疾病。H.pylori陰性患者入組,陽性者行其他治療。
1.2 研究方法
1.2.1 腹部癥狀問卷調(diào)查:自評(píng)問卷調(diào)查通過面談或電話隨訪在基線時(shí)、第2周末及第6周末3個(gè)時(shí)間點(diǎn)進(jìn)行。問卷內(nèi)容包括上腹痛、燒心、餐后飽脹、早飽、惡心、嘔吐、干嘔、噯氣、厭食、腹脹、上腹不適、腹鳴、咽下困難及胸骨后痛,癥狀評(píng)分統(tǒng)計(jì)前4項(xiàng)(上腹痛、燒心、餐后飽脹和早飽)。評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)采用5-point Likert量表[7]:0分:無腹部不適癥狀;1分:輕度,需注意腹部才能感覺到有癥狀;2分:中度,有癥狀,但不影響日常工作、生活;3分:重度,癥狀明顯,影響工作、生活;4分:極重度,癥狀嚴(yán)重,不能正常工作,嚴(yán)重影響日常生活。
1.2.2 胃鏡檢查:由2名高年資內(nèi)鏡醫(yī)師進(jìn)行。胃體(胃小彎和胃大彎中部)、胃竇(胃小彎和胃大彎)、十二指腸球部和十二指腸降部各取活檢2塊?;顧z組織即刻放入10%中性甲酫液中。
1.2.3 病理組織學(xué)檢查[8]:常規(guī)組織學(xué)處理、切片,行HE染色和Warthin-Starry染色。光學(xué)顯微鏡下觀察有無急慢性炎癥及嚴(yán)重程度,有無惡性腫瘤。胃體、胃竇、十二指腸球部、十二指腸降部的嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞分別計(jì)數(shù)。高倍鏡下(400×)隨機(jī)選取互不重疊的5個(gè)視野,分別計(jì)數(shù)每個(gè)視野的嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞數(shù)并記錄。1個(gè)高倍視野中嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)≥10定義為嗜酸粒細(xì)胞集簇陽性。黏膜表面或腺凹見典型集簇狀或彌漫分布的桿狀或球狀幽門螺桿菌定義為H.pylori陽性。
1.2.414C呼氣試驗(yàn):14C尿素膠囊與H.pylori檢測儀呼氣卡配套使用,生產(chǎn)廠家為安徽養(yǎng)和醫(yī)療器械設(shè)備有限公司(安徽桐城),產(chǎn)品注冊號(hào):皖食藥監(jiān)械(準(zhǔn))。
1.2.5 試驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì)和分組:胃竇黏膜組織Warthin-Starry染色及14C呼氣試驗(yàn)雙陰性定義為H.pylori陰性,符合上述標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的FD患者納入本研究。入組FD患者隨機(jī)數(shù)字表法分為埃索美拉唑組和替普瑞酮組(n=215)。分別給予埃索美拉唑鎂腸溶片(阿斯利康制藥有限公司)20 mg,2次/d;或替普瑞酮膠囊(衛(wèi)材(中國)藥業(yè)有限公司)50 mg,3次/d。兩組療程均為14 d。
2.1 一般情況 符合FD診斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的患者共215例,其中Warthin-Starry 染色和14C呼氣試驗(yàn)雙陽性者90例,雙陰性者77例,Warthin-Starry 染色陽性而14C呼氣試驗(yàn)陰性者19例,Warthin-Starry 染色陰性而14C呼氣試驗(yàn)陽性者17例,失訪12例,由于難以忍受腹瀉或胃部不適而中途退出者5例(替普瑞酮組3例,埃索美拉唑組2例)。在第2周末埃索美拉唑組和替普瑞酮組完成試驗(yàn)者分別為36例、36例,兩組于第6周末復(fù)查胃鏡并取黏膜活檢者分別為18例、16例。
2.2 病理檢查結(jié)果 入組FD患者基線時(shí)對(duì)胃體、胃竇、十二指腸球部及降部活檢標(biāo)本均行HE染色,胃竇標(biāo)本行Warthin-Starry 染色。第6周復(fù)查時(shí)胃鏡所取活檢標(biāo)本均行HE染色。所檢標(biāo)本HE染色均顯示正常的形態(tài)學(xué)表現(xiàn)或輕度慢性炎癥改變,未見活動(dòng)性十二指腸炎、腸道寄生蟲或癌癥組織學(xué)表現(xiàn)。HE染色標(biāo)本可見嗜酸性胞漿包繞雙葉形細(xì)胞核的典型嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞形態(tài)學(xué)表現(xiàn),在黏膜固有層中可見圍繞腺體的嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞集簇現(xiàn)象(見圖1)。所檢胃竇標(biāo)本W(wǎng)arthin-Starry染色顯示H.pylori被染成黑色桿狀或球狀,集簇狀或彌漫分布于黏膜表明或腺凹處,背景為金色或淺棕色,細(xì)胞漿為淺黃色,細(xì)胞核呈黑褐色,未見典型H.pylori染色表現(xiàn)則為Warthin-Starry 染色陰性(見圖1)。
圖1 FD患者胃十二指腸病理檢查結(jié)果(400×) 十二指腸球部(A)和十二指腸降部(B)黏膜組織(HE染色),顯示嗜酸性胞漿包繞雙葉形細(xì)胞核的典型嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞表現(xiàn);十二指腸球部(C)和十二指腸降部(D)黏膜組織學(xué)(HE染色),黏膜固有層中可見圍繞腺體的嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞集簇現(xiàn)象;胃竇(H.pylori陽性)(E)和胃竇(H.pylori陰性)(F)黏膜組織(Warthin-Starry染色),顯示背景為金色或淺棕色,陽性者H.pylori被染成黑色桿狀或球狀,集簇狀或彌漫分布于黏膜表明或腺凹處
Fig 1 Pothological results of gastric biopsy specimens from patients with FD (400×) Duodenal bulb (A) and duodenal descending part (B) mucosal histology (HE staining), showed typical eosinophil morphology with a bi-lobed nucleus and eosinophilic cytoplasm; duodenal bulb (C) and duodenal descending part (D) mucosal histology (HE staining), showed clusters of eosinophils in the lamina propria adjacent to glands; gastric antrum (H.pyloripositive) (E) and gastric antrum (H.pylorinegative) (F) mucosal histology (Warthin-Starry staining), showedH.pyloristained black while the background was light golden
2.3 藥物治療與癥狀評(píng)分 基線時(shí)埃索美拉唑組與替普瑞酮組的癥狀評(píng)分比較,差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05),但第6周末時(shí)前者較后者癥狀顯著減輕(見表1~2)。第2周末時(shí)埃索美拉唑組和替普瑞酮組的癥狀評(píng)分均較基線時(shí)明顯改善(見表2)。埃索美拉唑組在第6周末時(shí)癥狀評(píng)分較基線時(shí)也明顯改善,但替普瑞酮組未見顯著改變(見表2)。
2.4 藥物治療對(duì)胃十二指腸嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞的影響
2.4.1 埃索美拉唑和替普瑞酮對(duì)嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)的影響:基線及第6周時(shí)埃索美拉唑與替普瑞酮兩組胃十二指腸嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)差異均無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)(見表1、圖2)。埃索美拉唑組及替普瑞酮組基線和第6周嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)比較,差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)(見表3)。
2.4.2 埃索美拉唑和替普瑞酮對(duì)嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞集簇的影響:基線及第6周時(shí)埃索美拉唑與替普瑞酮兩組胃十二指腸嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞集簇率差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)(見表1、圖2)。埃索美拉唑組基線時(shí)和第6周嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞集簇率與替普瑞酮比較,差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)(見表3)。
表1 埃索美拉唑組與替普瑞酮組在基線時(shí)癥狀評(píng)分、嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)及嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞集簇率比較
Tab 1 Symptom scores, eosinophil counts and clustering rate of the esomeprazole group and teprenone group at baseline
例數(shù)癥狀評(píng)分(x±s)嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)(x±s)胃體胃竇十二指腸球部十二指腸降部嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞集簇率(%)胃體胃竇十二指腸球部十二指腸降部埃索美拉唑組364.92±1.577.78±7.667.61±5.0030.83±12.5631.47±14.2119.4433.3350.0063.89替普瑞酮組364.53±1.879.56±5.6212.14±4.0736.56±24.0531.11±17.8922.2227.7855.5658.33P值0.340.800.070.110.900.770.610.640.63
組別例數(shù)基線第2周第6周埃索美拉唑組364.92±1.571.33±0.57☆0.67±0.62☆替普瑞酮組364.53±1.871.67±1.15☆3.67±3.21P值0.340.120.00
注:與本組基線時(shí)比較, ☆P<0.05。
研究發(fā)現(xiàn),十二指腸對(duì)酸的高敏感性、十二指腸酸暴露增加、十二指腸對(duì)脂質(zhì)或縮膽囊素(CCK)的異常反應(yīng)及十二指腸免疫激活等多種病理生理機(jī)制與FD的發(fā)生有關(guān)[2]。Samsom等[9]發(fā)現(xiàn)部分FD患者中對(duì)十二指腸進(jìn)行酸灌注會(huì)引起惡心,而健康對(duì)照組沒有類似的表現(xiàn),提示FD患者存在十二指腸對(duì)酸的高敏感性。另有研究發(fā)現(xiàn)FD患者存在自發(fā)的十二指腸酸暴露增加,酸暴露增加者較正常酸暴露者消化不良癥狀更加嚴(yán)重[10]。部分FD患者十二指腸酸暴露增加的機(jī)制可能與十二指腸酸中、受損和十二指腸酸清除減少有關(guān),但目前缺乏FD患者十二指腸酸中和的相關(guān)研究。
十二指腸酸暴露增加導(dǎo)致消化不良癥狀的機(jī)制還有待進(jìn)一步闡明。H+能刺激十二指腸傳入神經(jīng)上的辣椒素受體等酸感受器,繼而釋放降鈣素基因相關(guān)肽和一氧化氮。因此,酸能夠直接刺激源自十二指腸的化學(xué)敏感性傳入通道。如果化學(xué)刺激能夠在外周或脊髓水平誘導(dǎo)感受性增強(qiáng),那么由酸導(dǎo)致的十二指腸傳入刺激就可能強(qiáng)化由脊髓感受性增強(qiáng)所誘導(dǎo)的胃的機(jī)械敏感性[11]。通過恒壓器研究發(fā)現(xiàn),對(duì)健康志愿者十二指腸內(nèi)灌注鹽水或酸時(shí)進(jìn)行比較,灌注酸時(shí)胃的機(jī)械敏感性增強(qiáng)[12]。
十二指腸內(nèi)酸灌注誘發(fā)腸胃反射,抑制胃竇蠕動(dòng)波,激發(fā)幽門壓力波,從而延遲胃排空[13]。另一方面,十二指腸pH影響移形復(fù)合運(yùn)動(dòng),并且堿性pH對(duì)于消化Ⅲ期的出現(xiàn)是必要的[14]。十二指腸內(nèi)酸性化時(shí)間延長會(huì)抑制消化Ⅲ期的出現(xiàn)。近來有研究發(fā)現(xiàn),對(duì)健康志愿者進(jìn)行十二指腸酸灌注并不影響消化Ⅲ期的出現(xiàn)和時(shí)程,但是會(huì)誘發(fā)胃竇動(dòng)力低下。上述研究表明,十二指腸酸化誘發(fā)或加重消化不良癥狀是通過對(duì)胃運(yùn)動(dòng)功能的影響而產(chǎn)生。
表3 埃索美拉唑組與替普瑞酮組在基線時(shí)和第6周癥狀評(píng)分、嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)及嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞集簇率比較
Tab 3 Comparison of symptom scores, eosinophil counts and clustering rate of the esomeprazole group and teprenone group at baseline and 6th week
例數(shù)嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)(x±s)胃體胃竇十二指腸球部十二指腸降部嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞集簇率(%)胃體胃竇十二指腸球部十二指腸降部埃索美拉唑組 基線時(shí)367.78±7.667.61±5.0030.83±12.5631.47±14.2119.4433.3350.0063.89 第6周188.50±2.8910.5±5.2039.00±19.6333.00±8.0422.2227.7750.0055.56 P值0.700.0530.070.670.810.681.000.13替普瑞酮組 基線時(shí)369.56±5.6212.14±4.0735.56±24.0531.11±17.8922.2227.7855.5658.33 第6周1811.69±7.6318.00±19.6437.81±10.7431.50±8.6025.0031.2550.0056.25 P值0.270.090.720.990.830.800.710.89
圖2 埃索美拉唑組與替普瑞酮組第6周時(shí)嗜酸粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)及集簇率比較 A:嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞集簇率;B:嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)
Fig 2 Comparison of eosinophil counts and clustering rate of the esomeprazole group and teprenone group at 6th week A: eosinophil counts; B: clustering rate
近年研究發(fā)現(xiàn)嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞增多可能與FD的發(fā)病機(jī)制有關(guān)。嗜酸粒細(xì)胞是胃腸道強(qiáng)有力的固有免疫細(xì)胞,它們參與宿主針對(duì)外來病原體的免疫,同時(shí)有助于維持腸上皮細(xì)胞的動(dòng)態(tài)平衡[15]。嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞是超敏反應(yīng)的關(guān)鍵細(xì)胞,十二指腸免疫激活是FD的重要發(fā)病機(jī)制之一。肥大細(xì)胞促使嗜酸粒細(xì)胞遷移,而嗜酸粒細(xì)胞激活肥大細(xì)胞。活化的肥大細(xì)胞釋放組胺、纖維蛋白溶酶原和前列腺素D2,肥大細(xì)胞和嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞脫顆粒引起神經(jīng)受刺激、平滑肌收縮,其中,嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞為效應(yīng)細(xì)胞,能釋放顆粒,而細(xì)胞因子的釋放和抗原表達(dá)起到免疫調(diào)節(jié)作用。在動(dòng)物模型中發(fā)現(xiàn)嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞引起胃腸動(dòng)力障礙和胃舒張受損,這些將導(dǎo)致腹痛、腹脹等胃腸道癥狀,嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞在人類胃腸道疾病中的相關(guān)作用值得進(jìn)一步研究[2]。
目前FD的治療主要是對(duì)癥治療,且大多數(shù)效果不佳[16]。質(zhì)子泵抑制劑抑酸療效優(yōu)于安慰劑,促動(dòng)力藥治療FD可能主要影響與進(jìn)食相關(guān)的癥狀,而根除H.pylori對(duì)少數(shù)FD患者有益,抗抑郁藥治療可能對(duì)難治性FD有益[4]。Talley研究中展望白三烯受體拮抗劑、IL-5抗體、組胺1和2拮抗劑等可能通過抑制嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞或嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞衍生的物質(zhì),抑制十二指腸的免疫激活,從而對(duì)改善癥狀有益[3]。理論上講類固醇激素具有免疫抑制作用,但目前研究認(rèn)為類固醇激素對(duì)感染后腸易激綜合征(PI-IBS)無效,尚未見應(yīng)用類固醇激素治療FD的報(bào)道[17]。
在我們的研究中隨機(jī)選取H.pylori陰性FD患者應(yīng)用埃索美拉唑治療,發(fā)現(xiàn)該藥能明顯緩解FD的消化不良癥狀,2周治療結(jié)束后隨訪4周,患者消化不良癥狀較基線時(shí)及第2周末仍明顯好轉(zhuǎn)。推測埃索美拉唑?qū)D的治療作用可能是通過強(qiáng)大的抑酸作用減少胃酸分泌,從而減少十二指腸酸暴露,相應(yīng)地緩解機(jī)體對(duì)胃擴(kuò)張的敏感性,促進(jìn)胃排空,減少胃潴留。但停藥后該組患者消化不良癥狀仍能持續(xù)緩解的機(jī)制不明,是否與質(zhì)子泵抑制劑治療后十二指腸對(duì)酸刺激的敏感性下降有關(guān)尚需進(jìn)一步闡明。
替普瑞酮治療胃炎、胃潰瘍的藥理作用包括抗?jié)冏饔?、胃黏液分泌增加、增加胃黏膜血流、保護(hù)胃黏膜、誘導(dǎo)熱休克蛋白(HSP)產(chǎn)生的細(xì)胞保護(hù)作用等。HSP能顯著提高機(jī)體對(duì)有害物質(zhì)的抵抗能力,替普瑞酮能誘導(dǎo)HSP70的產(chǎn)生[18]。HSP具有很強(qiáng)的細(xì)胞保護(hù)作用,作為胃黏膜保護(hù)劑在臨床上已有應(yīng)用。動(dòng)物實(shí)驗(yàn)發(fā)現(xiàn)替普瑞酮誘導(dǎo)腦、心、肺、肝、腎及小腸等這些臟器中HSP的產(chǎn)生,從而保護(hù)這些臟器[19]。一項(xiàng)前瞻、隨機(jī)、雙盲對(duì)照的交叉研究發(fā)現(xiàn),替普瑞酮可減輕雙氯芬酸所致的健康志愿者胃黏膜和小腸黏膜損傷[20]。目前關(guān)于替普瑞酮治療FD的研究還較少,最新資料表明替普瑞酮只改善胃潴留,約52%的FD患者應(yīng)用替普瑞酮治療[21]。
在我們的研究中隨機(jī)選取H.pylori陰性的FD患者對(duì)其應(yīng)用替普瑞酮進(jìn)行治療2周,第2周末患者消化不良癥狀較基線時(shí)有所改善,但在6周末時(shí)患者癥狀評(píng)分與基線時(shí)相比,差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。替普瑞酮改善FD患者臨床癥狀的機(jī)制尚不明確,可能與其誘導(dǎo)HSP產(chǎn)生、增加胃黏膜血流量及促進(jìn)胃黏液分泌的藥理作用有關(guān),這些因素可能降低了胃十二指腸對(duì)酸、脂質(zhì)等刺激的敏感性,從而改善了消化不良癥狀。但替普瑞酮對(duì)FD的治療效果又是有限的和暫時(shí)的,或許它可能只是作為安慰劑而起作用。相比而言,埃索美拉唑?qū)D的治療作用優(yōu)于替普瑞酮。
本研究探討了埃索美拉唑和替普瑞酮對(duì)FD患者胃十二指腸嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)、嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞集簇現(xiàn)象的影響,及嗜酸粒細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)變化與患者癥狀評(píng)分變化的關(guān)系。結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)埃索美拉唑或替普瑞酮治療后FD患者的癥狀有不同程度的改善,但同時(shí)未見十二指腸嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞數(shù)量及集簇現(xiàn)象出現(xiàn)相應(yīng)的變化。上述結(jié)果表明,埃索美拉唑和替普瑞酮對(duì)FD的治療作用并非通過影響十二指腸嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞水平途徑而起作用。本研究還不夠深入,未涉及兩種藥物對(duì)嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞免疫激活的研究,如嗜酸性粒細(xì)胞脫顆粒及細(xì)胞因子水平的變化。同時(shí)隨訪時(shí)間相對(duì)較短,且未對(duì)FD亞型進(jìn)一步分組,需要將來進(jìn)一步深入探討。
[1]Fischler B, Tack J, De Gucht V, et al. Heterogeneity of symptom oatern,psychsocial factors,and pathophysiologizal mechanisms in severe functional dyspepsia [J]. Gastrornterology, 2003, 124(4): 903-910.
[2]Lee KJ, Tack J. Duodenal implications in the pathophysiology of functional dyspepsia [J]. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2010, 16(3): 251-257.
[3]Talley NJ, Walker MM, Aro P, et al. Non-ulcer dyspepsia and duodenal eosinophilia. An adult endoscopic population-based case-control study [J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2007, 5(10): 1175-1183.
[4]McNally MA, Talley NJ. Current treatments in functional dyspepsia [J]. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol, 2007, 10(2): 157-168.
[5]M?nkemüller K, Malfertheiner P. Drug treatment of functional dyspepsia [J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2006, 12(1): 2694-2700.
[6]柯美云, 方秀才. 羅馬Ⅲ:功能性胃腸病[M]. 北京: 科學(xué)出版社, 2008: 378. Ke MY, Fang XC. Rome Ⅲ: the Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders [J]. Beijing: Science Press, 2008: 378.
[7]Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, Tytgat KM, Pollak PT, et al.Can severity of symptoms be used as outcome measures in trials of non-ulcer dyspepsia and Helicobacter pylori? [J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 1993, 46(3): 273-279.
[8]Talley NJ, Walker MM, Aro P, et al. Non-ulcer dyspepsia and duodenal eosinophilia: an adult endoscopic population-based case-control study [J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2007, 5(10): 1175-1183.
[9]Samsom M, Verhagen MA, vanBerge Henegouwen GP, et al. Abnormal clearance of exogenous acid and increased acid sensitivity of the proximal duodenum in dyspeptic patients [J]. Gastroenterology, 1999, 116(3): 515-520.
[10]Lee KJ, Demarchi B, Demedts I, et al. A pilot study on duodenal acid exposure and its relationship to symptoms in functional dyspepsia with prominent nausea [J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2004, 99(9):1765-1773.
[11]Mayer EA, Gebhart GF. Basic and clinical aspects of visceral hyperalgesia [J].Gastroenterology, 1994, 107(1): 271-293.
[12]Lee KJ, Vos R, Janssens J, et al. Influence of duodenal acidification on the sensorimotor function of the proximal stomach in humans [J]. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, 2004, 286(2): 278-284.
[13]Schwarz MP, Samsom M, Smout AJ. Chemospecific alterations in duodenal perception and motor response in functional dyspepsia [J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2001, 9(6): 2596-2602.
[14]Woodtli W, Owyang C. Duodenal pH governs interdigestive motility in humans [J].Am J Physiol, 1995, 26(8): 146-152.
[15]Jawairia M, Shahzad G, Mustacchia P. Eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases: review and update [J].ISRN Gastroenterol,2012,46(3):68-69.
[16]Talley N, Vakil NB, Moayyedi P. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the evaluationof dyspepsia [J].Gastroenterology, 2005, 12(9): 1756-1780.
[17]Dunlop SP, Jenkins D, Neal KR, et al. Randomized,double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of prednisolone in post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome [J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2003, 18(1): 77-84.
[18]Asano T, Tanaka K, Yamakawa N, et al. HSP70 confers protection against indomethacin-induced lesions of the small intestine [J].Pharmacol Exp Ther, 2009, 330(2): 458-467.
[19]Yokota A, Ohno R, Takahira Y, et al. Protective effect of teprenone against indomethacin-induced small intestinal lesions in rats [J]. Jpn Pharmacol Ther, 2005, 33(1): 51-61.
[20]Niwa Y, Nakamura M, Miyahara R, et al. Geranylgeranylacetone protects against diclofenac-induced gastric and small intestinal mucosal injuries in healthy subjects: a prospective randomized placebo-controlled double-blind cross-over study [J].Digestion, 2009, 80(4): 260-266.
[21]Hongo M, Harasawa S, Mine T, et al. Large-scale randomized clinical study on functional dyspepsia treatment with mosapride or teprenone: Japan Mosapride Mega-Study (JMMS) [J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2012, 27(1): 62-68.
(責(zé)任編輯:陳香宇)
Comparison of esomeprazole and teprenone on patients with functional dyspepsia
ZHAO Weidong1, ZHONG Xiaoqin1, ZHUANG Xinying1, JI Hongmei1, LI Anqing1, LI Xinxin1, WANG Ruicai2, ZHU Jianyou2, LI Yanqing3
1.Department of Gastroenterology; 2.Department of Pathology, People’s Hospital of Linzi District, Linzi 255400; 3.Department of Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, China
Objective To investigate the influence of esomeprazole and teprenone on symptom scores and gastrointestinal eosinophils ofH.pylori(-) functional dyspepsia (FD). Methods Abdlominal symptoms questionnaire, gastroscopy, histologic examination andH.pyloridetection were made according to baseline information.H.pylori-negative patients were enrolled in this study and randomly divided into two groups, treated with esomeprazole or teprenone seperately. The self-administered abdominal symptom questionnaire was used at 2nd week and 6th week, and part of the patients underwent gastroscopy and pathology again at the end of 6th week. Results The symptom scores of both groups were all significantly different between 2nd week and baseline. The symptom scores of esomeprazole group were significantly different between 6th week and baseline, but those of teprenone group were not. The symptom scores were significantly different between esomeprazole group and teprenone group at 6th week. The eosinophil counts of duodenums and clustering rate in the esomeprazole group and teprenone group were all not statistically different before and after treatment.Conclusion The effect of esomeprazole is better than that of teprenone onH.pylori-negative FD patients. Neither esomeprazole nor teprenone show effect on the eosinophils level of stomach and duodenum inH.pylori-negative patients with FD.
Functional dyspepsia; Eosinophils; Helicobactor pylori; Drug therapy
10.3969/j.issn.1006-5709.2017.05.011
趙衛(wèi)東,副主任醫(yī)師,博士研究生,研究方向:功能性胃腸病。E-mail: zhaoweidong1580@163.com
R57
A
1006-5709(2017)05-0521-05
2017-01-23