头孢吡肟与头孢他啶随机对照治疗细菌性感染129例

目的 评价头孢吡肟治疗细菌性感染的疗效和安全性。方法 以头孢他啶为对照药,在下呼吸道感染,腹腔,胆道感染,败血症中进行随机对照观察。给药方案为头孢吡肟每次２ｇ,２次／ｄ,头孢他啶每次２ｇ,３闪／ｄ;治疗尿路感染头孢吡肟每次１ｇ,２次／ｄ,头孢他啶每头１ｇ,３闪／ｄ;均为静脉滴注,疗程均为７－１４ｄ。结果 头孢吡肟组６５例,头孢他啶组６４例。头孢吡肟组和头孢他啶组有效率分别为９２．３％及９０．６％,     

头孢他美匹酯与头孢克肟随机对照治疗细菌性感染的临床研究

为评价头孢他美匹酯的安全性及临床疗效，用头孢他美匹酯（每１２小时２５０～５００ｍｇ）与头孢克肟（每１２小时２００ｍｇ，疗程均为７～１０天）随机对照治疗呼吸道与泌尿道感染９９例。试验组进入临床试验病例６１例，不良反应评价病例５５例，疗效评价５１例。对照组进入试验病例５８例，不良反应评价病例５４例，疗效评价４８例。结果头孢他美匹酯与头孢克肟两组的临床有效率分别为９４．１％（４８／５１例）与９１．７％（４４／４８例），细菌清除率分别为９５．３％与９５．１％，不良反应发生率分别为９．１％与７．４％，上述结果经统计学比较差异无显著性。表明头孢他美匹酯为治疗临床常见的呼吸道、泌尿道感染的安全、有效的抗菌药物。     

青蒿素片治疗恶性疟108例的效果

在海南省抗氯喹／抗哌喹恶性疟流行区，选择１０８例恶性疟现症病人，单用青蒿素片剂按总剂量与疗程天数，分成４ｇ５ｄ（３１例）、３ｇ３ｄ（３９例）和２．５ｇ２ｄ（３８例）三组治疗验证。三组治前几何平均原虫密度分别为１８０９８、１８４６２和１６５６３／μｌ，治后平均退热时间分别为２８．９±１６．７ｈ、３１．７±１７．７ｈ和３１．０±１４．４ｈ；平均原虫无性体转阴时间分别为３５．４±１１．５ｈ、３９．０±１４．６ｈ和３３．７±１２．８ｈ，即时疗效相似（Ｐ＞０．０５）。追踪随访２８ｄ的治愈率４ｇ５ｄ组为８６．２％，与３ｇ３ｄ组和２．５ｇ３ｄ组的４５．２％和３６．４％比较，差异非常显著（Ｐ＜０．０１）。三组病例药物副反应轻微。结果可见：第１ｄ顿服青蒿素片１ｇ，第２～５ｄ每天一次服０．７５ｇ的４ｇ５ｄ疗程，是目前应用青蒿素片剂治疗抗药性恶性疟疗效较好的治疗方案。     

头孢布烯与头孢呋辛随机对照治疗急性细菌性感染临床评价

目的进一步评价头孢布烯治疗细菌性感染的安全有效性。方法采用随机对照开放试验方法。头孢布烯组２００ｍｇ，口服；头孢呋辛组７５０ｍｇ，静脉点滴；均为每１２小时一次。疗程７～１４天。结果头孢布烯组及头孢呋辛组分别有６６例及６７例可评价疗效，两组有效率分别为８７．９％及８９．６％。本次观察共分离致病菌１１０株，细菌清除率分别为９０７％及８９３％。两组安全性评价分别为６６例及７０例，不良反应发生率分别为１０．６％与１０．０％。两组经统计学处理差异无显著性（Ｐ＞０．０５）。结论采用头孢布烯治疗急性细菌性感染安全、有效     

思密达联合羟氨苄青霉素治疗小儿急性感染性腹泻病46例

目的观察思密达和羟氨苄青霉素联合治疗小儿急性感染性腹泻的疗效．方法以思密达治疗４０例小儿急性感染性腹泻为对照组，观察口服思密达（１ｇ～３ｇ，３次／ｄ）联合羟氨苄青霉素（０１２５ｇ～０５ｇ，２～３次／ｄ）治疗该病４６例的疗效．结果思密达加羟氨苄青霉素研究组在治疗小儿急性感染性腹泻，症状，体征好转及消失天数与单用思密达对照组的疗效比较，ｔ检验Ｐ＜００１，差异有显著性．研究组显效率、总有效率分别为８０４％和９５６％，而对照组分别为５２５％和７２０％，χ２检验Ｐ＜００１，差异非常显著．结论口服思密达、羟氨苄青霉素联合治疗小儿急性感染性腹泻疗效高，病程短     

青霉烷砜／氨苄青霉素与头孢呋肟序贯疗法对老年呼吸道感染的临床研究

目的本总结青霉烷砜／氨苄青霉素(优立新)与头孢呋肟序贯疗法对老年人急性呼吸道感染治疗的临床疗效。方法对31例呼吸道感染患静脉注射青霉烷砜／氨苄青霉素继服舒他西林(优立新组)；同时对52例患静脉注射头孢呋肟继服头孢呋肟酯(头孢呋肟组)．两组疗效进行比较。结果优立新组：痊愈12例(39％)．显效12例(39％)．总有效率78％；头孢呋肟组：痊愈24例(46％)．显效15例(29％)，总有效率75％；两组在疗程中均无肝、肾、血象等方面的不良反应。结论两种序贯治疗对老年急性呼吸道感染均有较好的疗效．无明显差异。安全性高，使用方便。     

吡喹酮、阿苯达唑及其二者配伍治疗微小膜壳绦虫病的疗效观察

为了寻找一种安全、方便、有效的治疗微小膜壳绦虫病的药物和方法,将 １０５ 例微小膜壳绦虫感染者随机分为５ 组（包括对照组）,分别用吡喹酮 ６０ ｍ ｇ／ｋｇ 顿服、吡喹酮 １５ ｍ ｇ／ｋｇ 顿服同时伍用阿苯达唑１００ ｍ ｇ／ｄ×３ｄ、阿苯达唑２００ ｍ ｇ／ｄ×３ ｄ 和吡喹酮１５ ｍ ｇ／ｋｇ 顿服４ 种方法进行治疗。各治疗组的阴转率和对照组的自然阴转率在治疗后 １ 周分别为 ９０．４８％ 、９５．００％ 、４０．００％ 、１００％ 和 １２．５％ ;治疗后 １ 个月分别为 ９５．２４％ 、９５．００％ 、３５．００％ 、８４．２１％ 和 ２０．００％ ;治疗后半年为 ７６．１９％ 、６３．１６％ 、４６．１５％ 和６２．５０％ （无对照组）。结果表明,小剂量与大剂量吡喹酮治疗的效果均很明显,集体驱虫防治微小膜壳绦虫病以１５ ｍ ｇ／ｋｇ 为宜。阿苯达唑有一定的治疗效果,但协同增效作用不明显。     

美托洛尔治疗高血压120例临床分析

单用美托洛尔０．０５ｇ，２／ｄ治疗高血压患者１２０例，发周后有效率为６８．３％，收缩压及舒张压下降。对疗效不显著增加剂量０．１ｇ，２／ｄ疗效无明显改善。加用硝本地平１０ｍｇ，３／ｄ，血压显著下降，总有效率达９０．９％。     

头孢地嗪的临床及免疫调节作用研究

为评价头孢地嗪治疗免疫缺陷者感染的疗效、安全性及免疫调节作用，在１０７例呼吸道、尿路及其他细菌感染中，与头孢唑肟进行随机对照研究。有效率、痊愈率和细菌清除率头孢地嗪组分别为８７．３％、６１．８％和８９．３％；头孢唑肟组分别为８２．７％、５９．６％和９０．６％。不良反应发生率头孢地嗪组５．２％，头孢唑肟组７．４％。头孢地嗪组治疗后ＣＤ＋４、ＣＤ＋４／ＣＤ＋８比值升高，ＮＫ细胞活性增强，活化的淋巴细胞白细胞介素－２受体表达增多，对照药头孢唑肟则无显著作用。研究结果显示，头孢地嗪治疗免疫缺陷者感染安全有效，并具免疫调节作用。     

不同三联方案治疗幽门螺杆菌阳性消化性溃疡的多中心临床研究

目的 观察不同三联方案“丽珠胃三联”药物搭配、疗程和剂量的效果来探索较理想的治疗幽门螺杆菌（Ｈｐ）的方案。方法 Ｈｐ阳性的十二指肠溃疡１２６例、胃溃疡４０例。随枘发成三组：Ａ组；枸椽酸铋钾０．２２ｇ／次＋克拉霉素０．２５ｇ／次＋替硝唑０．５ｇ／次，称“丽珠胃三联”，均为２次／ｄ，疗程７ｄ：Ｂ组：药物组成、用法同Ａ组，但疗程为１４ｄ；Ｃ组：奥美拉唑２０ｍｇ，甲硝唑４００ｍｇ，阿莫西林１ｇ，均为２次／ｄ，疗程７ｄ，观察记录Ｈｐ根除情况、溃疡愈合情况、临床症状改善情况及不良反应。结果 １６０例完成治疗及复查，失记６例，Ｈｐ根除率Ａ、Ｂ、Ｃ三组分别为８７．９％，８７．０％，８６．８％。差异无显著性（Ｐ〉０．０５）；胃溃疡治疗后的总有效率分别为９２．３％。９０．９％及９２．９％；十二指肠溃疡治疗后的总有效率分别为９７．８     

Oral gemifloxacin once daily for 5 days compared with sequential therapy with i.v. ceftriaxone/oral cefuroxime (maximum of 10 days) in the treatment of hospitalized patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis

In a randomized, open-label, controlled, multicentre study, the clinical and bacteriological efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral gemifloxacin (320 mg once daily, 5 days) was compared with sequential intravenous (i.v.) ceftriaxone (1 g once daily, maximum 3 days) followed by oral cefuroxime axetil (500 mg twice daily, maximum 7 days) in adult hospitalized patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB) (n = 274). The clinical success rates at follow-up (21-28 days post-therapy) in the clinical per-protocol population (the primary endpoint) were 86.8% (105/121) for gemifloxacin vs. 81.3% (91/112) for ceftriaxone/cefuroxime (treatment difference = 5.5,95% CI -3.9,14.9). The corresponding clinical results in the clinical intention-to-treat (ITT) population were 82.6% (114/138) vs. 72.1% (98/136), respectively (treatment difference = 10.5,95% CI 0.7, 20.4).Thus, gemifloxacin had significantly higher clinical success rates than ceftriaxone/cefuroxime.The median time to discharge was 9 days in the gemifloxacin group vs. 11 days in the ceftriaxone/cefuroxime group (P = 0.04, Wilcoxon test). At follow-up, 120/138 (87.0%) gemifloxacin-treated patients had been discharged from hospital, compared with 111/136 (81.6%) ceftriaxone/cefuroxime-treated patients in the clinical ITT population. Both treatments were generally well tolerated and there was no significant difference between the treatment groups in the incidence or type of adverse events reported. A 5-day course of oral gemifloxacin was shown by this study to be at least equivalent to sequential i.v. ceftriaxone/cefuroxime axetil (for up to 10 days) in patients with AECB who require hospital treatment.     

Oral ciprofloxacin versus intravenous cefotaxime and ceftriaxone in the treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Cefotaxime or ceftriaxone were considered the first-choice antibiotic for empirical treatment in cirrhotic patients developing spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. It has been suggested that ciprofloxacin could be an alternative to cefotaxime or ceftriaxone in cirrhotic patients developing spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. The aim of the present study was to compare oral ciprofloxacin with cefotaxime and ceftriaxone in the treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients. METHODOLOGY: Fifty-three hospitalized cirrhotic patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis were prospectively included and randomized into three groups: group A (n = 16); received orally 500 mg ciprofloxacin every 12 h, group B (n = 18); received intravenous cefotaxime 2 g every 8 h and group C (n = 19) received intravenous ceftriaxone 2 g every 24 h. RESULTS: 15 patients from the ciprofloxacin group, 17 from the cefotaxime group and 17 patients from the ceftriaxone group were finally analyzed. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis resolution in three groups was found to be 80%, 76%, and 83%, respectively (p = NS). Incidence of complications and hospital mortality was similar in the three groups. No adverse events were observed in any of the three groups. The cost of the treatment was statistically lower in the ciprofloxacin group than in the cefotaxime group and ceftriaxone group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that orally ciprofloxacin is as effective as cefotaxime and ceftriaxone in the empirical treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients, and is also less expensive and can be administered orally.     

头孢三嗪每日1g治疗下呼吸道感染临床评价

目的 :比较头孢三嗪 (ceftriaxone)治疗下呼吸道感染每日 1g与 2 g不同用量的有效性和安全性。方法 :采用随机对照、多中心临床试验方法 ,治疗下呼吸道感染 10 2例。剂量用法 :头孢三嗪1.0g或 2 .0g ,qd ,静脉点滴 ,疗程均为 7天。 结果 :头孢三嗪 1g组和头孢三嗪 2 g组总有效率分别为84.6 %、94.0 % ,2组痰细菌培养阳性率分别为 6 4.0 %、6 1.5 % ,致病菌 β 内酰胺酶阳性率分别为44 .8% ,6 6 .7% ,细菌清除率均为 93 .8% ,2组不良反应率分别为 2 .0 %、3 .8% ,以上结果经统计学处理2组比较无差异 (P >0 .0 5 )。结论 :应用头孢三嗪治疗下呼吸道感染有效、安全、耐受性好 ;每日 1g与每日 2 g疗效及安全性相当 ;每日用药 1g可节省药费开支。     

Randomized comparison of ceftriaxone and cefotaxime in Lyme neuroborreliosis

In this prospective, randomized, open trial, 33 patients with Lyme neuroborreliosis were assigned to a 10-day treatment with either ceftriaxone, 2 g intravenously (iv) every 24 h (n = 17), or cefotaxime, 2 g iv every 8 h (n = 16). Of the 33 patients, 30 were eligible for analysis of therapeutic efficacy. Neurologic symptoms improved or even subsided in 14 patients of the cefotaxime group and in 12 patients of the ceftriaxone group during the treatment period. At follow-up examinations after a mean of 8.1 months, 17 of 27 patients examined were clinically asymptomatic. In one patient Borrelia burgdorferi was isolated from the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) 7.5 months after ceftriaxone therapy. CSF antibiotic concentrations were above the MIC 90 level for B. burgdorferi in nearly all patients examined. Patients with Lyme neuroborreliosis may benefit from a 10-day treatment with ceftriaxone or cefotaxime. However, as 10 patients were symptomatic at follow-up and borreliae persisted in the CSF of one patient, a prolongation of therapy may be necessary.     

Ciprofloxacin: in vitro, experimental, and clinical evaluation

Ciprofloxacin at a concentration of 2 micrograms/mL inhibited the growth of approximately 90% of 584 strains of aerobic bacteria isolated from cultures of blood drawn from septicemic patients. An increase in the inoculum size did not result in an increased MIC, but serial passages through media containing ciprofloxacin at sub-MIC levels increased the MIC for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Proteus vulgaris. In experimental subcutaneous abscesses in the mouse model, ciprofloxacin was more active than cefotaxime against a mixed infection induced with E. coli and Bacteroides fragilis. Against mixed E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus infection, no significant differences were noted between the two drugs. In a double-blind, prospective, randomized clinical study, perorally administered ciprofloxacin was compared with intravenously administered cefotaxime in the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections severe enough to require hospitalization. In 70 patients treated, the therapeutic efficacy of peroral ciprofloxacin was comparable to that of intravenous cefotaxime, with two differences: S. aureus infections responded less favorably to oral ciprofloxacin (62%) than to intravenous cefotaxime (90%), and aerobic gram-negative bacillary infections responded more favorably to ciprofloxacin (92%) than to cefotaxime (64%).     

Klinische Studie zur Prüfung der Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit von Cefotaxim,Ceftizoxim und Ceftriaxon bei Patienten mit komplizierten Harnwegsinfektionen

An open randomised clinical study was performed in three groups of 20 patients each with well-defined complicated urinary tract infections to compare the efficacy and tolerance of cefotaxime (1-2 g b.i.d.), ceftizoxime (2 g b.i.d.) and ceftriaxone (2 g u.i.d.). Treatment was administered intravenously over seven days. 63% of the patients were free of infection three to five days after the treatment. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of the three antibiotics with respect to the elimination rate of the sensitive bacteria. There were differences, however, with respect to the development of resistance and the occurrence of superinfections during therapy. No resistance developed during therapy in the ceftizoxime group. Resistance developed twice in the cefotaxime group and three times in the ceftriaxone group. Superinfections with resistant bacteria occurred significantly more frequently in the cefotaxime group (n = 8) than in the ceftriaxone group (n = 2). Six superinfections were observed in the ceftizoxime group. These differences, which could not be explained by the presence of complicating clinical factors, were considered to be due to the pharmacokinetic properties of the substances.     

Pneumococci: drug susceptibilities and preliminary epidemiological studies by penicillin binding protein genotyping

A collection of 307 pneumococcal isolates form 84 children and 223 adults admitted to Siriraj Hospital were separated into two groups, penicillin-susceptible (PSSP) and penicillin-nonsusceptible (PNSP). Each group was tested for susceptibilities to 12 drugs (cefuroxime, amoxicillin, chloramphenicol, tetracycline, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, imipenem, meropenem, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, erythromycin and co-trimoxazole). PSSP were susceptible to cefuroxime (87.5%), amoxicillin (100%), chloramphenicol (84.7%), tetracycline (45.8%), cefotaxime (99%), ceftriaxone (99%), imipenem (99%), meropenem (100%), ciprofloxacin (76%), ofloxacin (99%), erythromycin (94.8%) and co-trimoxazole (61.5%). PNSP were resistant to most drugs, except for amoxicillin (99%), ofloxacin (99%) and ciprofloxacin (86.3%). Twenty-two pneumococcal isolates belonging to the three most common serotypes (6, 19, 23) were randomly selected for studies of the pbp2b gene with RFLP. There were 7 distinct pbp2b RFLP patterns. RFLP pattern 1 was the most predominant resistant pattern. The RFLP pattern 2 was found only in PSSP.     

Azithromycin vs cefuroxime plus erythromycin for empirical treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of azithromycin dihydrate monotherapy with those of a combination of cefuroxime axetil plus erythromycin as empirical therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. The standard therapy of cefuroxime plus erythromycin was consistent with the American Thoracic Society, Canadian Community-Acquired Pneumonia Consensus Group, and Infectious Disease Society of America consensus guidelines. The doses were intravenous azithromycin (500 mg once daily) followed by oral azithromycin (500 mg once daily), intravenous cefuroxime (750 mg every 8 hours), followed by oral cefuroxime axetil (500 mg twice daily), and erythromycin (500-1000 mg) intravenously or orally every 6 hours. Randomization was stratified by severity of illness and age. Patients who were immunosuppressed or residing in nursing homes were excluded. RESULTS: Data from 145 patients (67 received azithromycin and 78 received cefuroxime plus erythromycin) were evaluable. Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae were isolated in 19% (28/145) and 13% (19/145), respectively. The atypical pathogens accounted for 33% (48/145) of the etiologic diagnoses; Legionella pneumophila, Chlamydia pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae were identified in 14% (20/ 145), 10% (15/145), and 9% (13/145), respectively. Clinical cure was achieved in 91% (61/67) of the patients in the azithromycin group and 91% (71/78) in the cefuroxime plus erythromycin group. Adverse events (intravenous catheter site reactions, gastrointestinal tract disturbances) were significantly more common in patients who received cefuroxime plus erythromycin (49% [30/78]) than in patients who received azithromycin (12% [8/67]) (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with azithromycin was as effective as cefuroxime plus erythromycin in the empirical management of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent patients who were hospitalized. Azithromycin was well tolerated.     

Ceftriaxone compared with cefotaxime for serious bacterial infections

Ceftriaxone was compared with cefotaxime for the treatment of serious bacterial infections in a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. The dose of ceftriaxone was 2 g once a day, and the dose of cefotaxime was 2 g every 4 h. Metronidazole was added if anaerobic infection was suspected. Explicit criteria were used to define infections, clinical response, and adverse effects. Ceftriaxone was given to 88 patients and cefotaxime to 83. The two treatment groups did not differ in types of infection, infecting organisms, and severity of underlying disease. The response rate was 81% (71/88) for ceftriaxone and 80% (66/83) for cefotaxime. The power of the study to detect a 15% difference in response rate at P less than .1 was 90%. The frequency of diarrhea, thrombophlebitis, prothrombin time, prolongation, colonization, and superinfection did not differ between treatment groups. Ceftriaxone 2 g once a day was as safe and effective as cefotaxime 2 g every 4 h for suspected serious bacterial infections.     

Randomized controlled monocentric comparison of once daily ceftriaxone with tobramycin and cefotaxime three times daily with tobramycin in neutropenic fever

 A prospective, randomized, controlled monocentric trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once daily ceftriaxone 2 g plus tobramycin 5 mg/kg in comparison to cefotaxime 2 g t.i.d. plus tobramycin 5 mg/kg qd in the treatment of neutropenic fever. In cases of fever ≥38.5  °C and a neutrophil count below 1000/μl, patients with hematological malignancies were assigned to ceftriaxone or cefotaxime, each with tobramycin. The primary endpoint was defined as defervescence <37.5  °C on day 4–6 followed by at least 7 afebrile days. Secondary endpoints were overall response, defined as defervescence on day 25 and toxicity. There were 160 episodes of 114 patients included. Fever of unknown origin accounted for 79 episodes (51%), microbiologically defined infection for 36 (23%), clinically defined infection for 27 (17%), and both clinically and microbiologically defined infection for 14 episodes (9%). On an intent-to-treat basis 156 episodes could be evaluated for the primary endpoint. Ceftriaxone plus tobramycin and cefotaxime plus tobramycin resulted in a primary response in 46.9% and 45.3%, respectively. Overall response was achieved on study day 25 in 87.7% and 80%, respectively. No significant difference in toxicity was observed. Once-daily ceftriaxone plus tobramycin was not inferior to cefotaxime t.i.d. plus tobramycin qd in the empirical treatment of neutropenic fever. Received: 29 October 1999 / Accepted: 28 August 2000