OBJECTIVE: To explore and compare the clinical effect and safety of liposomal albendazole (L-ABZ) and tablet-albendazole (T-ABZ) in the treatment of cystic echinococcosis (CE1, CE2, and CE3). METHODS: A total of 269 cases treated with cystic echinococcosis (CE) in Xinjiang Medical University the First Affiliated Hospital from 1998 to 2008 were reviewed. 51 cases were excluded and 218 cases were enrolled in this research by retrospective case-control method. Among 110 cases were treated with L-ABZ and 108 cases were treated with T-ABZ for short-term (3 months) and long-term courses (6 months) respectively. The effects and safety of the two medicines were compared by analyzing the clinical symptoms, imaging check and serologic test results. RESULTS: In short-term effect evaluation, the total effective rates and curative rates of L-ABZ group and T-ABZ group were 77.9% and 49.1% vs 28.4% and 13.9%, respectively. The effects of L-ABZ group was better than that of T-ABZ group, with remarkable difference in total effective rates and curative rates (x2 value was 19.581, 6.877, respectively, P is less than 0.05). In long-term effect evaluation, the total effective rates and curative rates of L-ABZ and T-ABZ group were 81.7% and 49.0% vs 47.6% and 20.6%, respectively. There was significant difference between L-ABZ group and T-ABZ group in total effective rates and curative rates (x2 value was 20.977, 15.049, respectively, P is less than 0.05). In T-ABZ group the short-term curative rates were 50.0% (15/30), 8.8% (8/91) and 33.3% (7/21) respectively in CE1, CE2, and CE3, the short-term total effective rates were 56.7% (17/30), 35.2% (32/91) and 61.9% (13/21) respectively in CE1, CE2, and CE3. The long-term curative rates were 58.3% (7/12), 28.6% (12/42) and 70.0% (7/10) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the long-term total effective rates were 75.0% (9/12), 69.0% (29/42) and 100.0% (10/10) respectively in CE1, CE2, and CE3. When compared with CE2, differences existed in CE1 (x2 = 24.887, 4.329; P is less than 0.05) and CE3 groups (x2 = 8.860, 5.076; P is less than 0.05) in terms of short-term effects. In L-ABZ group, the short-term curative rates were 47.4% (18/38), 12.2% (12/98) and 61.5% (8/13) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the short-term total effective rates were 92.1% (35/38), 65.3% (64/98) and 92.3% (12/13) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the long-term curative rates were 79.3% (23/29), 35.9% (23/64) and 50.0% (3/6) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the long-term total effective rates were 96.6% (28/29), 84.4% (54/64) and 100% (6/6) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3. When compared with CE2, there were significant differences in CE1 (x2 = 19.648, 9.930; P is less than 0.05) and CE3 groups (x2 = 18.880, 3.876; P is less than 0.05) in terms of short-term effect. In L-ABZ and T-ABZ groups, the drug-related adverse effects were 11.1% (12/108) and 12.7% (14/110) respectively without significant difference (x2 = 0.155, P is more than 0.05). CONCLUSION: L-ABZ and T-ABZ were both effective anti-echinococcosis drugs without dominant side-effects. The clinical effect of L-ABZ was better than that of T-ABZ.
OBJECTIVE: To explore and compare the clinical effect and safety of liposomal albendazole (L-ABZ) and tablet-albendazole (T-ABZ) in the treatment of cystic echinococcosis (CE1, CE2, and CE3). METHODS: A total of 269 cases treated with cystic echinococcosis (CE) in Xinjiang Medical University the First Affiliated Hospital from 1998 to 2008 were reviewed. 51 cases were excluded and 218 cases were enrolled in this research by retrospective case-control method. Among 110 cases were treated with L-ABZ and 108 cases were treated with T-ABZ for short-term (3 months) and long-term courses (6 months) respectively. The effects and safety of the two medicines were compared by analyzing the clinical symptoms, imaging check and serologic test results. RESULTS: In short-term effect evaluation, the total effective rates and curative rates of L-ABZ group and T-ABZ group were 77.9% and 49.1% vs 28.4% and 13.9%, respectively. The effects of L-ABZ group was better than that of T-ABZ group, with remarkable difference in total effective rates and curative rates (x2 value was 19.581, 6.877, respectively, P is less than 0.05). In long-term effect evaluation, the total effective rates and curative rates of L-ABZ and T-ABZ group were 81.7% and 49.0% vs 47.6% and 20.6%, respectively. There was significant difference between L-ABZ group and T-ABZ group in total effective rates and curative rates (x2 value was 20.977, 15.049, respectively, P is less than 0.05). In T-ABZ group the short-term curative rates were 50.0% (15/30), 8.8% (8/91) and 33.3% (7/21) respectively in CE1, CE2, and CE3, the short-term total effective rates were 56.7% (17/30), 35.2% (32/91) and 61.9% (13/21) respectively in CE1, CE2, and CE3. The long-term curative rates were 58.3% (7/12), 28.6% (12/42) and 70.0% (7/10) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the long-term total effective rates were 75.0% (9/12), 69.0% (29/42) and 100.0% (10/10) respectively in CE1, CE2, and CE3. When compared with CE2, differences existed in CE1 (x2 = 24.887, 4.329; P is less than 0.05) and CE3 groups (x2 = 8.860, 5.076; P is less than 0.05) in terms of short-term effects. In L-ABZ group, the short-term curative rates were 47.4% (18/38), 12.2% (12/98) and 61.5% (8/13) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the short-term total effective rates were 92.1% (35/38), 65.3% (64/98) and 92.3% (12/13) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the long-term curative rates were 79.3% (23/29), 35.9% (23/64) and 50.0% (3/6) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3, the long-term total effective rates were 96.6% (28/29), 84.4% (54/64) and 100% (6/6) respectively in CE1, CE2 and CE3. When compared with CE2, there were significant differences in CE1 (x2 = 19.648, 9.930; P is less than 0.05) and CE3 groups (x2 = 18.880, 3.876; P is less than 0.05) in terms of short-term effect. In L-ABZ and T-ABZ groups, the drug-related adverse effects were 11.1% (12/108) and 12.7% (14/110) respectively without significant difference (x2 = 0.155, P is more than 0.05). CONCLUSION:L-ABZ and T-ABZ were both effective anti-echinococcosis drugs without dominant side-effects. The clinical effect of L-ABZ was better than that of T-ABZ.