P>　　提　要　目的　选择166例复发性口疮患者按中医实证、虚证分型及Lehner分型讨论它们之间外周血T细胞亚群的变化差异。方法　T淋巴细胞亚群采用单克隆抗体APAAP法检测。结果　实证组、虚证组病人CD3、CD4、CD4／CD8减少，而CD8的升高只在实证组有显著差异（P＜0．01）。在Lehner分类中四型的CD3、CD4、CD4／CD8均减少，而CD8的升高只在腺周型和白塞氏型才有显著统计学意义（P＜0．01）。结论　复发性口疮患者无论以中医分型或以Lehner分型它们之间的T细胞紊乱均存在差异,有临床指导意义。

The Presentation Variant and Clinical Significance of the T-Lymphocyte subsets in patient with RAU in Chinese Traditional medic

ine and Lehner's classifications.

Weng Zhiqiang, Su Hang, Xu Jianbang et al.

The Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical Collgeg, Guangzhou 510260

　　Abstract　Objective In order to study the Presentation Variant and Clinical significance of the T-Lymphocyte subsets in patient with RAU in Chinese traditional medicine and Lehners classification, 166 cases with RAU were reported.Methods T-Lymphocyte subsets were tested by monoclonal antibody_APAAP.Result Debating about Chinese traditional medicine, CD3、CD4、CD4／CD8 were evidently decreased in group of asthenia syndrome and sthenia syndrome. CD8 was significantly increased in sthenia syndromes group (P＜0．01). On Lehners classification, CD3、CD4、CD4／CD8 were evidently decreased in every group of MiAU、HU、MjAU and BS. CD8 was significantly increased in both groups of MjAU and BS (P＜0．01). Conclusion RAU is a disorder of immunodeficiency. There have been difference in very group no matter which classification is used, and the difference plays an important role in clinic practice.

　　Key words　RAU　　T-Lymphocyte subsets

　　材料及方法

　　1.　研究对象　选取近年我院粘膜病专科门诊确诊为RAU患者166名，其中男性78例，女性88例，平均年龄40.5岁。病程2—20年不等，以初诊时病损定分型，并抽血送检，讨论结果。

　　2.　研究方法　T细胞亚群计数采用单克隆抗体APAAP法检测，由北京邦定生物医学公司提供检测试剂盒。

　　结　果

　　中医辩证实证、虚证，Lehner分类轻型口疮、泡疹型口疮、腺周口疮、白塞氏综合征检测结果与对照组对比（表1）。

表1　实验组各型RAU T细胞亚群计数与对照组比较（％，）

	CD3	CD4	CD8	CD4／CD8
实　证	54.92±1.14.	35.50±1.80..	35.30±1.35...	1.03±0.13....
（n＝98）
虚　证	54.65±1.14.	30.80±1.40..	31.50±1.38...	0.98±0.10....
（n＝68）
轻　型	54.95±1.14*	34.80±1.38△△	31.60±1.33***	1.10±0.12****
（n＝62）
多发型	53.98±1.14*	30.20±1.40**	30.09±1.35△△△	0.98±0.10****
（n＝48）
腺固型	54.20±1.14*	29.00±1.41**	36.00±1.32***	0.80±0.11****
（n＝38）
白塞氏型	54.00±1.20*	29.50±1.52**	35.85±1.38***	0.82±0.10****
（n＝18）
对照组	66.10±1.70	46.20±1.83	29.00±1.61	1.70±0.09
（n＝100）

　　与对照组比较有显著性减少P＜0．01，两证比较P＞0.05

　　与对照组比较有显著性减少P＜0．01，两证比较P＜0.05

　　实证组与对照组比较有显著性升高P＜0．01，两证比较有显著差异P＜0.05