论文部分内容阅读
选择湖沼型洲垸亚型、河滩水位不能控制的现场作为实验区。实验区2900人,居民感染率21.33％～32.81％,牛感染率35.90％～40.79％,人群肝肿大率35.89％,属重流行区。1987～1990年,A、B两村同时实施吡喹酮“2、4、4”化疗方案,但B村第1年对易感地带加1农药物灭螺。居民感染率分别由21.33％及32.81％下降到1.11％及0.26％,下降94.80％及99.21％;钉螺感染率下降89.62％及83.54％,B村已无新感染,取得明显的防制效果。表明A与B村所实施的两种方案都是可行的,“2、4、4”化疗方案具有效显、价廉、适用的优点。对照村（C）虽有一定防制效果,但4年急感5人。比较A村与B村、B村与C村、A村与C村4年间人群总阳性率,均有显著差异。
Choose embankment embankment sub-type lakes, river water level can not control the scene as the experimental area. The experimental area of 2900 people, the resident infection rate of 21.33% ~ 32.81%, bovine infection rate 35.90% ~ 40.79%, the rate of population hepatomegaly 35.89%, is a heavy endemic area. From 1987 to 1990, A and B villages simultaneously implemented the “2,4,4” chemotherapy regimen of praziquantel. However, in the first year of village B, one pesticide herbicide was added to control the susceptible zone. Infection rates of residents decreased from 21.33% and 32.81% to 1.11% and 0.26% respectively, with a decrease of 94.80% and 99.21% respectively. Infection rates of snails decreased by 89.62% and 83.54% respectively. No significant new infection was found in village B and a clear control effect was obtained. It shows that both schemes of village A and village B are viable. The “2,4,4” chemotherapy regimen has the advantages of obvious effect, low cost and suitable application. Control Village (C) although a certain control effect, but 4-year emergency 5 people. Comparing the total positive rate of population between A village and B village, B village and C village, A village and C village for 4 years, there were significant differences.