Chinese General Practice ›› 2023, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (23): 2918-2922.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2023.0102
• Drug Safety • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:
2023-02-27
Revised:
2023-03-25
Published:
2023-08-15
Online:
2023-04-13
Contact:
DU Kaixian
通讯作者:
杜开先
作者简介:
基金资助:
组别 | 例数 | 月龄(月) | 性别(男/女) | 病程(月) | 发作频率(次/月) | IEA (次/180 s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VPA组 | 27 | 39.4±11.1 | 17/10 | 3.4±1.5 | 4.67±1.54 | 8.56±2.93 |
OXC组 | 28 | 43.2±11.3 | 15/13 | 3.2±1.5 | 5.00±1.05 | 9.39±3.24 |
LEV组 | 28 | 42.6±9.8 | 11/17 | 3.8±2.0 | 4.43±1.43 | 8.21±3.60 |
F(χ2)值 | 0.980 | 3.139a | 1.049 | 1.256 | 0.961 | |
P值 | 0.380 | 0.208 | 0.355 | 0.290 | 0.387 |
Table 1 Comparison of general data among the three groups
组别 | 例数 | 月龄(月) | 性别(男/女) | 病程(月) | 发作频率(次/月) | IEA (次/180 s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VPA组 | 27 | 39.4±11.1 | 17/10 | 3.4±1.5 | 4.67±1.54 | 8.56±2.93 |
OXC组 | 28 | 43.2±11.3 | 15/13 | 3.2±1.5 | 5.00±1.05 | 9.39±3.24 |
LEV组 | 28 | 42.6±9.8 | 11/17 | 3.8±2.0 | 4.43±1.43 | 8.21±3.60 |
F(χ2)值 | 0.980 | 3.139a | 1.049 | 1.256 | 0.961 | |
P值 | 0.380 | 0.208 | 0.355 | 0.290 | 0.387 |
组别 | 例数 | 无效 | 控制 | 好转 | 有效 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VPA组 | 27 | 2(7.4) | 18(66.7) | 7(25.9) | 25(92.6) |
OXC组 | 28 | 3(10.7) | 15(53.6) | 10(35.7) | 25(89.3) |
LEV组 | 28 | 2(7.1) | 16(57.2) | 10(35.7) | 26(92.9) |
Table 2 Comparison of clinical efficacy among the three groups
组别 | 例数 | 无效 | 控制 | 好转 | 有效 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VPA组 | 27 | 2(7.4) | 18(66.7) | 7(25.9) | 25(92.6) |
OXC组 | 28 | 3(10.7) | 15(53.6) | 10(35.7) | 25(89.3) |
LEV组 | 28 | 2(7.1) | 16(57.2) | 10(35.7) | 26(92.9) |
组别 | 例数 | 无效 | 控制 | 好转 | 有效 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VPA组 | 27 | 3(11.1) | 7(25.9) | 17(63.0) | 24(88.9) |
OXC组 | 28 | 12(42.8) | 5(17.9) | 11(39.3) | 16(57.1) |
LEV组 | 28 | 3(10.7) | 9(32.1) | 16(57.2) | 25(89.3) |
Table 3 Comparison of EEG IEA among the three groups
组别 | 例数 | 无效 | 控制 | 好转 | 有效 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VPA组 | 27 | 3(11.1) | 7(25.9) | 17(63.0) | 24(88.9) |
OXC组 | 28 | 12(42.8) | 5(17.9) | 11(39.3) | 16(57.1) |
LEV组 | 28 | 3(10.7) | 9(32.1) | 16(57.2) | 25(89.3) |
组别 | 例数 | 运动维度 | 个人-社会维度 | 语言维度 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | ||
对照组 | 30 | 105.00±4.96 | 103.30±5.00 | 104.87±6.85 | |||||||||
VPA组 | 27 | 94.26±6.32a | 92.70±10.85 | 0.782 | 0.441 | 96.07±6.44a | 92.52±7.32 | 2.246 | 0.033 | 93.26±10.13a | 95.33±11.05 | -1.059 | 0.299 |
OXC组 | 28 | 94.93±12.39a | 94.39±11.66 | 0.386 | 0.703 | 93.36±8.83a | 93.00±8.73 | 0.284 | 0.779 | 91.64±9.60a | 92.04±10.38 | -0.203 | 0.841 |
LEV组 | 28 | 96.50±6.51a | 98.25±6.65b | -1.775 | 0.087 | 94.32±11.64a | 98.25±6.65bc | -2.245 | 0.033 | 92.71±8.91a | 96.46±8.58 | -2.705 | 0.012 |
F值 | 11.215 | 2.255 | 8.570 | 3.107 | 14.229 | 1.467 | |||||||
P值 | <0.001 | 0.111 | <0.001 | 0.050 | <0.001 | 0.237 | |||||||
组别 | 手眼协调维度 | 表现维度 | 实际推理维度 | ||||||||||
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | ||
对照组 | 103.67±6.16 | 108.00±9.27 | 103.90±7.35 | ||||||||||
VPA组 | 96.93±6.47a | 95.15±8.22 | 0.883 | 0.386 | 95.37±9.92a | 94.11±8.18 | 0.576 | 0.569 | 93.63±8.81a | 90.63±9.00 | 2.149 | 0.041 | |
OXC组 | 93.18±7.55a | 92.21±7.06 | 0.604 | 0.551 | 93.25±9.42a | 91.43±9.88 | 1.077 | 0.291 | 92.14±7.42a | 92.32±7.74 | -0.143 | 0.887 | |
LEV组 | 94.93±11.24a | 98.11±7.97c | -2.573 | 0.016 | 95.61±9.81a | 98.75±7.90c | -2.717 | 0.011 | 92.86±9.91a | 95.18±8.78 | -2.584 | 0.015 | |
F值 | 9.436 | 4.037 | 14.366 | 5.071 | 12.766 | 2.010 | |||||||
P值 | <0.001 | 0.021 | <0.001 | 0.008 | <0.001 | 0.141 |
Table 4 Comparison of development quotient of different functional areas in the tested children
组别 | 例数 | 运动维度 | 个人-社会维度 | 语言维度 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | ||
对照组 | 30 | 105.00±4.96 | 103.30±5.00 | 104.87±6.85 | |||||||||
VPA组 | 27 | 94.26±6.32a | 92.70±10.85 | 0.782 | 0.441 | 96.07±6.44a | 92.52±7.32 | 2.246 | 0.033 | 93.26±10.13a | 95.33±11.05 | -1.059 | 0.299 |
OXC组 | 28 | 94.93±12.39a | 94.39±11.66 | 0.386 | 0.703 | 93.36±8.83a | 93.00±8.73 | 0.284 | 0.779 | 91.64±9.60a | 92.04±10.38 | -0.203 | 0.841 |
LEV组 | 28 | 96.50±6.51a | 98.25±6.65b | -1.775 | 0.087 | 94.32±11.64a | 98.25±6.65bc | -2.245 | 0.033 | 92.71±8.91a | 96.46±8.58 | -2.705 | 0.012 |
F值 | 11.215 | 2.255 | 8.570 | 3.107 | 14.229 | 1.467 | |||||||
P值 | <0.001 | 0.111 | <0.001 | 0.050 | <0.001 | 0.237 | |||||||
组别 | 手眼协调维度 | 表现维度 | 实际推理维度 | ||||||||||
治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对 | P值 | ||
对照组 | 103.67±6.16 | 108.00±9.27 | 103.90±7.35 | ||||||||||
VPA组 | 96.93±6.47a | 95.15±8.22 | 0.883 | 0.386 | 95.37±9.92a | 94.11±8.18 | 0.576 | 0.569 | 93.63±8.81a | 90.63±9.00 | 2.149 | 0.041 | |
OXC组 | 93.18±7.55a | 92.21±7.06 | 0.604 | 0.551 | 93.25±9.42a | 91.43±9.88 | 1.077 | 0.291 | 92.14±7.42a | 92.32±7.74 | -0.143 | 0.887 | |
LEV组 | 94.93±11.24a | 98.11±7.97c | -2.573 | 0.016 | 95.61±9.81a | 98.75±7.90c | -2.717 | 0.011 | 92.86±9.91a | 95.18±8.78 | -2.584 | 0.015 | |
F值 | 9.436 | 4.037 | 14.366 | 5.071 | 12.766 | 2.010 | |||||||
P值 | <0.001 | 0.021 | <0.001 | 0.008 | <0.001 | 0.141 |
[1] |
|
[2] | |
[3] |
|
[4] |
徐曼,王娇,王治静,等. 奥卡西平混悬液治疗儿童癫痫的疗效和安全性的临床观察[J]. 西安交通大学学报(医学版),2016,37(2):298-301,306. DOI:10.7652/jdyxb201602031.
|
[5] |
刘远昌. 两种抗癫痫单药方案对部分性发作癫痫患儿临床疗效及安全性[J]. 临床军医杂志,2017,45(11):1171-1173. DOI:10.16680/j.1671-3826.2017.11.21.
|
[6] |
Association for Research in Infant & Child Development. GDS-C (China)[EB/OL]. [2023-01-02].
|
[7] |
任波,韩晓莉,董艳萍,等. 丙戊酸钠联合左乙拉西坦对小儿难治性癫痫的治疗效果分析[J]. 中国实用医刊,2021,48(6):109-112. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn115689-20201129-05892.
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
李欣潞,许虹,梁稀. 奥卡西平联合左乙拉西坦治疗成人颞叶癫痫患者认知功能障碍的疗效观察[J]. 中国药房,2020,31(13):1628-1632. DOI:10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2020.13.16.
|
[10] |
张正春,王毓新. 左乙拉西坦与卡马西平对新诊癫痫患者骨代谢、认知功能及生活质量的影响比较[J]. 神经损伤与功能重建,2018,13(2):101-103. DOI:10.16780/j.cnki.sjssgncj.2018.02.017.
|
[11] |
杨黎,董宪喆,齐晓涟,等. 左乙拉西坦在临床应用中疗效与安全性的研究进展[J]. 中国新药杂志,2021,30(7):607-610.
|
[12] |
张波. 难治性癫痫患者认知功能评估及影响因素分析[D]. 石家庄:河北医科大学,2015.
|
[13] |
卞广波,方晓东,段志娴. 丙戊酸钠治疗儿童良性癫痫伴中央颞区棘波的有效血药浓度及相应状态下的认知功能研究[J]. 宁夏医科大学学报,2013,35(11):1215-1218. DOI:10.16050/j.cnki.issn1674-6309.2013.11.039.
|
[14] |
吴乃斌,李莉,崔璐莎,等. 丙戊酸钠对精神分裂大鼠CREB/BDNF/TrkB通路及神经元损伤的影响[J]. 四川医学,2021,42(6):579-584. DOI:10.16252/j.cnki.issn1004-0501-2021.06.009.
|
[15] |
孙伟,毛薇,王玉平,等. 抗癫痫药对癫痫患者认知功能的影响[J]. 中国康复理论与实践,2010,16(7):648-649. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2010.07.018.
|
[16] |
陈芳,孙素真,王丽辉,等. 唑尼沙胺与丙戊酸钠对癫痫患者认知功能的影响[J]. 脑与神经疾病杂志,2015,23(3):188-190.
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
葛义,王丽琨,伍国锋. 突触囊泡蛋白2A在癫痫相关认知功能障碍中的作用机制研究进展[J]. 山东医药,2022,62(17):94-96. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-266X.2022.17.024.
|
[20] |
潘玺冬,王丽琨,韩旭,等. 突触囊泡蛋白2A参与神经系统疾病机制的研究进展[J]. 中国病理生理杂志,2021,37(4):759-763. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4718.2021.04.024.
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
侯蕴祈,欧阳基鹏,游文霞,等. 奥卡西平和左乙拉西坦治疗新诊断部分性发作癫疒间患儿的疗效分析[J]. 实用药物与临床,2015,18(2):160-164. DOI:10.14053/j.cnki.ppcr.201502011.
|
[24] |
赵婧,王宁. 四种抗癫痫药物对部分性癫痫患者认知功能及生活质量的影响对照研究[J]. 神经损伤与功能重建,2022,17(7):416-419. DOI:10.16780/j.cnki.sjssgncj.20210217.
|
[25] |
杨春清,李哲,杨环玲,等. 奥卡西平和卡马西平对成人部分性癫痫认知功能及脑电图的影响[J]. 河北医药,2012,34(22):3373-3375. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-7386.2012.22.004.
|
[1] | Yangzhou XU, Yaping LI, Heng YANG, Hui YE, Zhihui ZHANG, Zhi SONG. Clinical Investigation about Relationship between Neurological Paroxysmal Disorders and Patent Foramen Ovale [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25(24): 3018-3021. |
[2] | CHEN Xianrui,XU Jinping,YAO Yonghua,CHEN Ling. A Case of Angelman Syndrome with Pyridoxin-dependent Epilepsy and Literature Review [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2021, 24(3): 363-366. |
[3] | ZHANG Kai,LU Hongru,SUN Suzhen. Research Progress on Prognosis of Children with Autoimmune Epilepsy Encephalopathy [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2021, 24(20): 2619-2623. |
[4] | ZHANG Xiangmin,HAN Qian,LIU Zongyuan,XU Falin. Vitamin D Effectively Controls Gelastic Seizure of Non-epileptic:Report of One Case and Review of Literature [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2020, 23(30): 3856-3858. |
[5] | WU Wenjuan,HU Jintong,TANG Hongxia,ZHANG Xiaoqing,LI Aixia,LI Baoguang,SUN Suzhen. The Clinical Characteristics of Epilepsy Caused by a New Mosaicism Mutation of PCDH19 Gene in a Man were Analyzed and the Literature was Reviewed [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2020, 23(29): 3751-3756. |
[6] | NIU Huiyan1*,LIU Juan1,WANG Hai1,PENG Chaoying2,JIA Weiquan2. Report of MELAS Type Mitochondrial Encephalomyopathy:Four Cases in the Second Generation of a Familymelas [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2020, 23(24): 3104-3108. |
[7] | WEI Qiang,CHENG Jie,TIAN Congna,BIAN Yanzhu,YANG Shuangchen,YANG Xin,SONG Guoqing,ZHOU Ruming,QIU Gang. Value of 18F-FDG PET with Cortex ID Analysis in the Localization of Epileptic Foci Caused by Focal Cortical Dysplasia [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2019, 22(3): 341-346. |
[8] | PENG Yan,LI Yingxuan,LIN Hua. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Refractory Epilepsy:Research Progress and Technology Optimization [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2019, 22(26): 3250-3254. |
[9] | DU Yakun,CHEN Fang,WANG Lei,ZHAO Dengyan,LIU Jing,SUN Suzhen. Effect of Levetiracetam on Electroencephalogram and Cognitive Function in Children with Partial Seizures [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2019, 22(14): 1689-1695. |
Viewed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full text 255
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract 645
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||