利福喷丁与利福平治疗复治涂阳肺结核的临床效果比较

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of Rifapentine(RPT) and Rifampicin(RFP) in the treatment of recurrent smear positive pulmonary tuberculosis patients. Methods A total of 100 patients with re treated smear positive pulmonary tuberculosis from May 2023 to May 2025 admitted to our hospital were selected, and divided into both groups by different treatment method. The RFP group(50 cases) received RFP treatment, while the RPT group(50 cases) received RPT treatment. The clinical efficacy, symptom improvement time, inflammatory factor levels, and adverse reactions were compared in both groups. Results In the total effective rate, in comparison of RFP group 84.00%(42/50), RPT group 98.00%(49/50) was higher(P<0.05). In the improvement time of cough, sputum, wheezing, fever, and wet rales, in comparison of RFP group, the RPT group was shorter(P<0.05). After treatment, the tumor necrosis factor-α(TNF-α), procalcitonin(PCT), and interleukin-6(IL-6) levels decreased in both groups(P<0.05), interleukin-4(IL-4) levels increased(P<0.05), in comparison of RFP group, TNF-α, PCT, IL-6 levels were lower(P<0.05), IL-4 level was higher(P<0.05). In the incidence of adverse reactions(liver dysfunction, gastrointestinal discomfort, rash, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia), in comparison of RFP group, the RPT group was lower(P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with RFP, RPT has better clinical efficacy in the treatment of recurrent smear positive pulmonary tuberculosis, can shorten the time for patient symptom improvement, reduce the level of inflammatory factors in the body, and lower the incidence of adverse reactions. Its clinical efficacy and safety are superior to RFP.