4.0 Article

Biliary sludge: pathogenesis, etiology and drug therapy

期刊

TERAPEVTICHESKII ARKHIV
卷 93, 期 2, 页码 179-186

出版社

CJSC CONSILIUM MEDICUM
DOI: 10.26442/00403660.2021.02.200638

关键词

biliary sludge; cholelithiasis; gallstones; ursodeoxycholic acid; Ursofalk

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that Ursofalk is highly effective in the treatment of biliary sludge disease, especially within the first 3 months of therapy. Additionally, compared to generic drugs from other manufacturers, the therapeutic effectiveness of the German substance Ursofalk is superior.
Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness of the use of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) for the treatment of biliary sludge (BS) and to compare the therapeutic effectiveness of the German substance UDCA and generic drugs from other manufacturers. Materials and methods. The study involved 65 patients diagnosed with BS (K80.8). To assess the severity of BS, ultrasound of the gallbladder was performed before treatment, after 1, 3, 6 months during therapy, as well as an assessment of its contractility. All patients were randomized into 2 groups. Patients of the main group received UDCA Ursofalk (Germany) at a dose of 10 mg/kg for at least 6 months. Patients in the comparison group received UDCA (another manufacturer) at a dose of 10 mg/kg for at least 6 months. Results. After 3 months of follow-up, the number of patients with dissolved sludge in the main group was 87.1%, while in the comparison group - 50%. In 71% of patients, the normalization of the lean volume of the gallbladder was noted, and in the comparison group only in 47.1%. After 6 months of follow-up, complete resolution of BS in the main group was observed in 93.5% of cases, and in the comparison group in 73.6% of cases. Conclusion. As a result of the study, the high effectiveness of Ursofalk during oral litolysis in patients with stage I GI (BS) in the first 3 months of therapy, as well as the normalization of the contractile function of the gallbladder, were noted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据