左氧氟沙星序贯疗法治疗成人社区获得性肺炎112例临床疗效观察

目的:探讨左氧氟沙星序贯治疗社区获得性肺炎的疗效及安全性.方法:将112例社区获得性肺炎患者随机分成两组:治疗组给予静脉滴注左氧氟沙星3 d后改为口服;对照组给予头孢哌酮/舒巴坦 阿奇霉素静脉滴注3 d后改为口服头孢拉定 阿奇霉素片,疗程均为10 d,现察治愈率和药物不良反应.结果:治疗组有效率为85.7%(48/56),对照组为82.1%(46/56),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);不良反应治疗组发生率为7.1%(4/56),对照组为8.9%(5/56),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论:左氧氟沙星序贯治疗社区获得性肺炎疗效确切,不良反应少,可作为社区获得性肺炎的一线用药.     

头孢哌酮舒巴坦钠联合阿奇霉素治疗老年重症下呼吸道感染120例临床分析

目的：评价头孢哌酮舒巴坦钠联合阿奇霉素治疗老年重症下呼吸道感染的临床效果。方法：120例病房住院患者头孢哌酮舒巴坦钠2．0g溶于0．9％生理盐水100ml中静点每日二次，连用7～10天。阿奇霉素0．25g溶于0．9％生理盐水100ml中静点每日一次连用7-10天。结果：120例病人治疗96例，显效16例，进步6例，无效2例。有效率93．3％。不良反应轻，主要为胃肠道反应和头晕。停药后消失，未出现其他不良反应。结论：头孢哌酮舒巴坦钠联合阿奇霉素治疗老年重症下呼吸道感染临床疗效好，副反应少。     

阿奇霉素与左氧氟沙星序贯治疗社区获得性肺炎70例分析

目的 比较阿奇霉素与左氧氟沙星序贯治疗社区获得性肺炎的临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析我院2006年1月至2007年1月阿奇霉素与左氧氟沙星序贯治疗社区获得性肺炎患者的临床疗效.结果 共纳入患者79例,阿奇霉素组40例,左氧氟沙星组39例,两组在临床症状体征(咳嗽、咳痰、发热、胸痛、肺部啰音)以及X线胸片、痰细菌培养、血清支原体抗体检测等方面没有显著性差异.两组临床疗效比较,阿奇霉素组总有效率为70.0%,出现不良反应2例,表现为轻度恶心,上腹部不适;左氧氟沙星组总有效率为84.6%,出现不良反应3例,其中恶心等胃肠道反应1例,皮疹2例;两组临床疗效有显著性差异.结论 左氧氟沙星是经验性治疗社区获得性肺炎的有效、安全的抗生素,但是,应当注意氟喹诺酮有引起伪膜性肠炎的可能.     

左氧氟沙星序贯治疗社区获得性肺炎的疗效观察

目的评价左氧氟沙星序贯治疗社区获得性肺炎的疗效。方法将96例社区获得性肺炎患者随机分为两组,治疗组49例,给予左氧氟沙星注射3d后改为口服;对照组47例,给予头孢呋辛钠联合阿奇霉素注射3d后改为口服。两组疗程均为7～14d。观察临床症状、体征、胸部X线和实验室检查等指标。结果两组临床疗效差异无显著性（P〉0.05）,不良反应差异无显著性。结论左氧氟沙星序贯治疗社区获得性肺炎疗效确切,值得推广。     

莫西沙星治疗老年社区获得性肺炎疗效观察

目的观察莫西沙星治疗老年社区获得性肺炎的临床疗效。方法将88例老年社区获得性肺炎患者随机分为治疗组42例和对照组46例,治疗组给予莫西沙星静脉滴注3~5 d,口服莫西沙星序贯治疗3~6 d,平均疗程10 d。对照组给予头孢哌酮舒巴坦联合阿奇霉素静脉滴注,平均疗程14 d。结果治疗组疗效优于对照组。结论莫西沙星序贯治疗老年社区获得性肺炎安全有效,敏感性高。     

左氧氟沙星治疗呼吸道感染60例的临床观察

目的观察分析左氧氟沙星静脉注射液，治疗呼吸道感染的临床效果，在细菌培养条件不成熟时总结经验性抗感染治疗。方法将117例呼吸道感染患者随机分为临床观察组及对照组。临床观察组60例，给于左氧氟沙星注射液静脉点滴，400mg／次，1次／d，7～14d为一疗程。对照组57例，用头孢哌酮／舒巴坦钠静脉点滴，2g／次，2次／d，7～14d为一疗程，分别统计有效率进行对照分析。结果两组有效率比较，左氧氟沙星或头孢哌酮／舒巴坦钠（89．9％、84．1％、P=0．001），两组的有效率差别不明显，两组不良反应发生5例，2例（8．3％、3．5％）；表现为恶心、腹胀、谷丙转氨酶增高，程度较轻，呈一过性。结论左氧氟沙星对呼吸道感染效果好，不良反应发生率低，慢性气管炎急性复发，急性气管-支气管炎、肺炎，临床治疗效果好可选择使用。     

4种抗菌药物治疗细菌性肺炎的药物经济学分析

目的：研究细菌性肺炎的4种抗菌药物的治疗方案的经济学效果。方法：选择136例细菌性肺炎患者，随机分为4组，分别给予头孢哌酮／舒巴坦、左氧氟沙星、头孢噻肟钠、阿奇霉素治疗，观察各组疗效、不良反应，并运用药物经济学方法进行成本效果分析。结果：4种治疗方案总有效率分别为8Z9％、84．2％、78．1％、87．1％；成本、效果比分别为24．52、19．06、17．32、24．07；以C组为参照的增量成本、效果比分别为141．69、41．38、82．7。结论：头孢噻肟钠治疗细菌性肺炎更具成本效果优势，可作为选择治疗方案时参考。     

热毒宁注射液联合阿奇霉素静脉滴注治疗儿童社区获得性肺炎疗效观察

目的观察热毒宁注射液联合阿奇霉素静脉滴注治疗儿童社区获得性肺炎的临床疗效。方法将96例儿童社区获得性肺炎患儿随机分为治疗组和对照组各48例,分别予以热毒宁注射液联合阿奇霉素静脉滴注及病毒唑配合阿奇霉素静脉滴注治疗。结果治疗组治愈率87．5％,对照组治愈率62．5％,两者比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。治疗组总有效率95．8％,也显著高于对照组的79．2％（P〈0．05）。未见明显不良反应。结论热毒宁注射液联合阿奇霉素静脉滴注治疗儿童社区获得性肺炎安全、有效。     

左氧氟沙星与头孢曲松联合阿奇霉素治疗社区获得性下呼吸道感染的对照研究

目的比较左氧氟沙星注射液与头孢曲松注射液＋口服阿奇霉素在治疗社区获得性下呼吸道感染中的疗效和安全性。方法采用随机、开放、对照研究，共入选88例患者，其中试验组43例，接受左氧氟沙星治疗，500mg每日1次静脉滴注；对照组45例，接受头孢曲松＋阿奇霉素治疗，头孢曲松2g每日1次静脉滴注，阿奇霉素口服，每日0．25g（首次0．5g）。治疗7～10d后评价临床和细菌学疗效。结果左氧氟沙星组的总有效率为86．0%，头孢曲松＋口服阿奇霉素组为84．4％；试验组细菌清除率为93．3％，对照组为92．9％，差异均无显著性（P〉0．05）。两组患者中发现非典型病原体感染共12例，其中5例为肺炎支原体，4例为肺炎衣原体，3例为嗜肺军团菌。所有12例非典型病原体感染患者均痊愈。患者对左氧氟沙星和头孢曲松＋口服阿奇霉素均有良好的耐受性。结论左氧氟沙星和头孢曲松＋口服阿奇霉素都可以作为治疗社区获得性下呼吸道感染的有效、安全的药物。     

阿奇霉素与左氧氟沙星序贯疗法治疗社区获得性肺炎的临床价值

目的：探讨阿奇霉素与左氧氟沙星序贯疗法对社区获得性肺炎（CAP）的治疗效果及临床价值。方法：将2010年1月—2011年7月诊治的40例社区获得性肺炎患者随机分为阿奇霉素组和左氧氟沙星组,各20例,两组给药时间均为2周,观察两组患者的临床疗效和不良反应。结果：阿奇霉素组15例痊愈,5例显效,总有效率为100.0%;左氧氟沙星组8例痊愈,10例显效,1例进步,1例无效,总有效率为90.0%。与左氧氟沙星组相比,阿奇霉素组的总有效率明显提高,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。阿奇霉素组出现不良反应4例,其中表现为恶心以及腹上区不适等胃肠道症状2例,局部瘙痒1例,肝功异常1例。左氧氟沙星组出现不良反应5例,其中局部瘙痒2例,胃肠道不适症状2例,精神症状1例。但两组病例的不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论：阿奇霉素与左氧氟沙星序贯疗法,可明显提高社区获得性肺炎的治疗效果。     

Cefoperazone versus ceftriaxone monotherapy of nosocomial pneumonia.

Ceftriaxone and cefoperazone monotherapy was compared in a multicentered, randomized, nonblinded, prospective study of patients with nosocomial pneumonia. These antibiotics were equally effective, with an overall successful treatment rate of 48 (80%) of 60 for the cefoperazone-treated patients and 35 (70%) of 50 for the ceftriaxone-treated patients. Patients with nursing-home-acquired pneumonia had similar bacterial pathogens and an almost identical cure rate to those patients with hospital-acquired infection. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of side effects of superinfections. The development of secondary pneumonia with resistant bacteria was low, 3% with cefoperazone and 4% with ceftriaxone. When antibiotic, administrative, and laboratory costs were calculated, cefoperazone was slightly less expensive than ceftriaxone. Both cefoperazone and ceftriaxone are effective therapy for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia.     

Microbiologic features and outcome of pneumonia in transplanted patients

We prospectively evaluated lower respiratory tract infections in solid organ transplantation (SOT) patients to determine the microbiologic diagnosis and clinical outcomes. We diagnosed 83 cases of pneumonia, 38 of which were community acquired and 45 were nosocomial. Those with bilateral infiltrates or absence of improvement after 3 days of treatment underwent fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Bacterial pneumonia was the most frequent diagnosis and mixed infection predominated in the nosocomial group (11/45 nosocomial versus 1/38 community). Fiberoptic bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage had higher diagnostic yield in nosocomial pneumonia (77% versus 47%). Mortality differences between the 2 groups were 58% nosocomial versus 8% community-acquired infections (P < 0.001). SOT patients with nosocomial pneumonia, or those who needed mechanical ventilation, had a high mortality rate and benefits from the fiberoptic diagnostic techniques.     

阿奇霉素和红霉素转换治疗儿童支原体肺炎疗效比较

目的用阿奇霉素和红霉素分别转换治疗儿童支原体肺炎,比较两者临床疗效及不良反应。方法66位患儿随机分两组,阿奇霉素组36例,静滴阿奇霉素10mg／（kg·d）,1次／d,连用5d,停用4d,转换为阿奇霉素糖浆10mg／（kg·d）,1次／d,连用3d。红霉素组30例,红霉素针剂25～30mg／（kg·d）,1次／d,连用5d,转换为红霉素片25—30mg／（kg·d）,分3次口服,连用7d。临床观察治疗效果和不良反应发生率,并对肺外并发症进行半年随访。结果阿奇霉素组优良率为94．44％,红霉素组优良率为83．33％,优良率阿奇霉素组高于红霉素组,但无统计学意义。胃肠道反应、注射部位疼痛和肝功能损害三个主要的不良反应发生率阿奇霉素组出现8,3,1例,红霉素组出现20,12,6例,二组有统计学意义。随访半年,在慢性咳嗽、头痛伴脑电图异常、关节疼痛、粒细胞减少、荨麻疹等并发症,二组无明显差异。结论阿奇霉素转换治疗儿童支原体肺炎疗效肯定,不良反应少,儿童支原体肺炎可优先考虑使用阿奇霉素。     

左氧氟沙星序贯疗法与头孢呋辛联合阿奇霉素治疗社区获得性肺炎的多中心、随机对照临床和药物经济学研究

目的对左氧氟沙星的序贯疗法治疗社区获得性肺炎（CAP）进行临床疗效观察及药物经济学分析评价。方法以头孢呋辛联合阿奇霉素为对照药，采用多中心随机、开放、阳性对照研究方法。结果378例CAP患者中左氧氟沙星序贯疗法治疗（190例）的痊愈率和有效率分别为67．37％和96．84％，细菌阴转率高达96．77％，药物不良反应发生率为10．53％；对照药治疗（188例）的痊愈率和有效率分别为64、36％和96、28％。细菌阴转率为96．67％，药物不良反应发生率为7．98％；两组比较差异无统计学意义，平均疗程、住院天数和住院费用差异亦无统计学意义，试验组的成本-效果比为32．01，低于对照组（38．51）。结论左氧氟沙星的序贯疗法治疗CAP临床疗效较好，药物不良反应率较低，成本-效果比较低。     

哌拉西林-他唑巴坦治疗社区获得性肺炎疗效观察

目的 探讨哌拉西林-他唑巴坦治疗社区获得性肺炎的临床疗效。方法将200例患者随机分为观察组和对照组各100例，观察组应用哌拉西林-他唑巴坦4．5g治疗，静脉滴注，2次／d，用药8～12d；对照组使用头孢曲松钠2g，静脉滴注，1次／d，用药8～12d；比较两组临床疗效。结果治疗组有效率为95．0％，对照组有效率为73．0％，两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。结论哌拉西林-他唑巴坦对社区获得性肺炎有较好疗效，具有一定的临床价值，值得临床应用推广。     

Prospective open randomized study comparing efficacies and safeties of a 3-day course of azithromycin and a 10-day course of erythromycin in children with community-acquired acute lower respiratory tract infections.

The efficacies and safeties of a 3-day, 3-dose course of azithromycin (10 mg/kg of body weight per day) and a 10-day, 30-dose course of erythromycin (40 mg/kg/day) for the treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infections in children were compared in an open randomized multicenter study. Sixty-eight of 85 evaluable patients (80%) had radiologically proven pneumonia, and 20% had bronchitis. Treatment success defined as cure or major improvement was achieved in 42 of 45 (93%) azithromycin recipients versus 36 of 40 (90%) erythromycin recipients. Adverse events were reported in 12 of 45 and 6 of 40 of the patients treated with azithromycin and erythromycin, respectively, a difference which was not statistically significant. In conclusion, a 3-day course of azithromycin is as effective as a 10-day course of erythromycin in the treatment of community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections in children, with comparable safety and acceptability profiles. This shorter treatment course might have a beneficial effect on compliance, especially in the pediatric age group.     

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the comparative efficacy and safety of azithromycin against other antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infections.

We carried out a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of azithromycin compared with other antibiotics in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections, including acute bronchitis (five comparisons including 1372 patients), acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (13 comparisons including 1342 patients) and community-acquired pneumonia (18 comparisons with 1664 patients). For the first two indications, azithromycin did not offer any statistically significant reduction in clinical failures [random effects odds ratios 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.31 and 0.64, 95% CI 0.31-1.32, respectively] and absolute risk differences were small. For community-acquired pneumonia, azithromycin significantly reduced clinical failures by about one-third (random effects odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.95). The absolute incremental benefit was approximately one clinical failure prevented per 50 treated patients with community-acquired pneumonia. There was no significant heterogeneity for different comparators and for bacterial versus atypical pneumonias. Azithromycin was discontinued because of adverse events in only 23 of 3487 patients (0.7%). Although results should be interpreted cautiously as most trials were open-label and susceptible to bias, the meta-analysis indicates that, compared with antibiotics with traditional pharmacokinetics that require more prolonged courses, azithromycin offers no significant advantage for bronchitis, but may be more effective in community-acquired pneumonia.     

Safety and efficacy of sequential i.v. to p.o. moxifloxacin versus conventional combination therapies for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in patients requiring initial i.v. therapy

To compare the efficacy of sequential i.v. to p.o. moxifloxacin with ceftriaxone ± azithromycin ± metronidazole for the treatment of patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP), a multi-centered, prospective, randomized, open label study was performed. CAP patients were randomized to moxifloxacin (400 mg/d—at least one i.v. dose) or ceftriaxone (at least one dose of 2 g i.v. q.d. followed by cefuroxime 500 mg p.o. b.i.d.) ± azithromycin, ± metronidazole (cephalosporin/macrolide control: CMC). The primary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Bacteriological response at TOC was the secondary endpoint. Clinical cure was found in 83.3% (90/108) of moxifloxacin patients and 79.6% (90/113) of control patients. Microbiological responses were 81.8% (18/22) for moxifloxacin and 60.7% (17/28) for CMC patients. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 18.0% of moxifloxacin and 16% of CMC patients. It is concluded that i.v. to p.o. moxifloxacin is as effective as CMC for treatment of CAP and is a reliable alternative antimicrobial therapy.     

Novel, single-dose microsphere formulation of azithromycin versus 7-day levofloxacin therapy for treatment of mild to moderate community-acquired Pneumonia in adults

This randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study was designed to demonstrate that a single 2.0-g oral dose of a novel microsphere formulation of azithromycin was at least as effective as 7 days of levofloxacin, 500 mg/day, in the treatment of adult patients with mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia (Fine classes I, II, and III). In total, 427 subjects were randomly assigned to receive either a single 2.0-g dose of azithromycin microspheres (n = 213) or a 7-day regimen of levofloxacin (n = 214). At baseline, 219 of 423 (51.8%) treated subjects had at least one pathogen identified by culture, PCR, or serology. The primary end point was the clinical response (cure or failure) in the "clinical per protocol" population at test of cure (days 13 to 24). Clinical cure rates were 89.7% (156 of 174) for azithromycin microspheres and 93.7% (177 of 189) for levofloxacin (treatment difference, -4.0%; 95% confidence interval, -9.7%, 1.7%). Bacteriologic success at test of cure in the "bacteriologic per protocol" population was 90.7% (97 of 107) for azithromycin microspheres and 92.3% (120 of 130) for levofloxacin (treatment difference, -1.7%; 95% confidence interval, -8.8%, 5.5%). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated; the incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 19.9% and 12.3% for azithromycin and levofloxacin, respectively. A single 2.0-g dose of azithromycin microspheres was at least as effective as a 7-day course of levofloxacin in the treatment of mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients.