Clinical Effect of Doxycycline Combined with Compound Sulfamethoxazole and Rifampicin in the Treatment of Brucellosis Spondylitis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical value of triple antibiotic therapy consisting of doxycycline, compound sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin in the treatment of brucellosis spondylitis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 100 patients with brucellosis spondylitis admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University from March 2016 to June 2019. Patients were divided into the following two groups: the control group (n = 50) treated with dual antibiotic therapy (rifampicin + compound sulfamethoxazole), and the observation group (n = 50) treated with triple antibiotic therapy (rifampicin + doxycycline + compound sulfamethoxazole). The treatment effect, low back pain relief, levels of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP), as well as the adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The response rate of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05). Before treatment, there was no significant difference in the low back pain assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS), or levels of ESR, PCT and CRP between the two groups (P > 0.05). But after treatment, the VAS score and the levels of ESR, PCT and CRP in observation group were lower than those in the control group (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in the incidence of adverse reactions (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The triple antibiotic therapy of doxycycline, compound sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin is effective in the treatment of brucellosis spondylitis. It can significantly alleviate patients' back pain and inflammation with a high safety profile, which is worthy of clinical application.

[Effect of Guanfu Base A in patients with ventricular arrhythmias].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect and safety of intravenous Guanfu Base A hydrochloride (GFA) in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: Patients without severe structural heart disease presenting with equal or more than 150 premature ventricular contractions per hour and/or non sustained ventricular tachycardia in drug-free holter monitoring were recruited in this double blind randomized active-controlled study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive GFA or propafenone intravenously by a proportion of 1:1 in a double-blind manner. Intravenous bolus of the study medicine was given, followed by maintenance infusion for 6 hours. 24 hours continuous electrocardiographic recordings were performed to evaluate the efficacy. Vital signs, electrocardiograms and adverse events were documented before, during and after drug administration. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients came from eight centres were randomized to GFA or propafenone group. The demographic characteristics, the extent of ventricular arrhythmias and baseline clinical findings were comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the percentage of reducing premature ventricular contractions and the accumulated efficacy between two groups. GFA had tendency to be more effective than propafenone in reducing the number of ventricular ectopy (P = 0.0609). There were no significant differences in the onset of action after drug administration between two drugs. The tolerance of GFA was better than propafenone. The adverse events in GFA group were less severe than those in propafenone group. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous GFA in controlling the premature ventricular contraction has comparable effect to IV propafenone. Tolerance of GFA was better than propafenone.