口服加替沙星与左氧氟沙星治疗下呼吸道和尿路感染的前瞻性多中心随机对照研究

目的：评价加替沙星片治疗下呼吸道感染及尿路感染的疗效与安全性。方法：以左氧氟沙星片为对照药，在248例下呼吸道和尿路感染中进行疗效和安全性的多中心随机对照观察。加替沙星组125例，其中下呼吸道感染50例，尿路感染75例；左氧氟沙星组123例，其中下呼吸道感染54例，尿路感染69例。给药方案分别为治疗下呼吸道感染加替沙星片400mg1次／d口服，左氧氟沙星片200mg2次／d口服，疗程均为7—14d；肾盂肾炎、复杂性尿路感染及反复发作性尿路感染加替沙星片400mg1次／d口服，左氧氟沙星200mg2次／d口服，疗程均为7—14dl急性单纯性下尿路感染加替沙星片200mg1次／d口服，左氧氟沙星片100mg2次／d口服，疗程均为5d。结果：加替沙星组125例和左氧氟沙星组123例的临床有效率分别为95．2％(119／125)和91．9％(113／123)，临床痊愈率分别为68．8％(86／125)和63．4％(78／123)；细菌清除率分别为89．3％(100／112)和89．5％(94／105)；不良反应发生率分别为25．3％(40／158)和18．6％(30／161)，实验室检查异常发生率为14．7％(22／150)和15．8％(24／152)。上述结果经统计学处理，差异均无显性。结论：本研究结果显示加替沙星片治疗下呼吸道及尿路感染的疗效和安全性与左氧氟沙星片相仿。     

口服国产司帕沙星片治疗急性细菌性感染多中心随机对照研究

目的 评价国产司帕沙星片治疗急性细菌性感染的临床疗效与安全性。方法 以国产洛美沙星片为对照药进行随机对照研究，共治疗各种细菌性感染231例，其中司帕沙星117例、洛美沙星组114例。司帕沙星200－300mg，每日1次口服，疗程5-14d；洛美沙星300mg，每日2次口服，疗程5－14d。结果 司帕沙星组与对照组的痊愈率和有效率分别为84．62％与74．56％和94．87％与92．98％。细菌清除率分别为94．28％和92．02％。组间比较差异无显性（P＞0．05）。两组的不良反应发生率分别为7．69％和11．40％（P＞0．05），反应多呈轻度，勿需处理可自行缓解。结论 司帕沙星抗菌谱广，抗菌活性强，为治疗中、轻度急性细菌性感染安全有效的口服抗菌药物。     

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。     

托舒沙星治疗细菌性感染的多中心临床试验

目的：评价国产托舒沙星片剂治疗细菌性感染的疗效与安全性。方法：托舒沙星与环丙沙星片剂非盲法随机对照治疗呼吸道感染及尿路感染208例,托舒沙星开放治疗细菌性感染213例。给药方案为,托舒沙星片每日450～600mg,环丙沙星片每日1～1．5g,均分2～3次口服。治疗单纯性尿路感染托舒沙星每日300mg,分2次口服,环丙沙星每日0．5～0．75g,分2～3次给药。结果：在对照试验中,托舒沙星和环丙沙星的有效率分别为90．6％(96／106)及89．2％(91／102),细菌清除率均为88．4％(84／95及76／86),不良反应发生率分别为7．5％(8／106)及6．7％(7／102)。上述两组的各项结果经统计学处理,差异均无显性。托舒沙星开放治疗细菌性感染213例的有效率为89．7％(191/213),细菌清除率为91．3％(179／196),不良反应发生率为6．6％(14／214)。结论：托舒沙星片剂治疗细菌性感染疗效确切,不良反应少见而轻微,其疗效及安全性与口服环丙沙星片相仿。     

阿莫西林／舒巴坦钠治疗急性细菌性感染的随机对照多中心临床研究

目的 评价阿莫西林／舒巴坦钠治疗急性细菌性感染的有效性和安全性。方法 以氨苄西林／舒巴坦钠为对照，采用多中心随机对照临床试验治疗急性细菌性感染113例，其中试验组58例、对照组55例。阿莫西林／舒巴坦钠每日4．5－6.0g、氨苄西林／舒巴坦钠每日4．5－12.0g，两药均分次静脉滴注，疗程7－14日。结果 试验组与对照组的痊愈率和有效率分别为75．86％与80．0％（P＞0．05）和94．83％与98．18％（P＞0．05）。两组细菌产醇率分别为67．35％和69．57％（P＞0．05）。细菌清除率分别为93．88％与95．65％。两组均未见严重不良反应。结论 阿莫西林／舒巴坦钠治疗急性细菌性感染临床疗效确切，使用安全。     

阿奇霉素治疗急性扁桃体炎疗效观察

目的：观察阿奇霉素对急性扁桃体炎的疗效。方法：160例急性扁桃体炎患者分为两组，试验组用阿奇霉素，每日一次，每次0．5g口服，连用5天。对照组用阿莫西林，每日三次，每次0．5g口服，连用5天。两组患者同时服用西瓜润喉片，每日3次，每次2片。结果：有效率分别为90．3％和70．0％，不良反应无明显差异。结论：经统计学分析，X^2检验，阿奇霉素对急性扁桃体炎疗效优于阿莫西林，不良反应低，抗菌谱广，耐药菌群少，服用方便，适用人群广，值得推广应用。     

注射用阿奇霉素和头孢呋辛钠治疗下呼吸道感染临床对照研究

目的；比较国产注射用阿奇霉素和头孢呋辛钠治疗下呼吸道感染的疗效及安全性。方法：采用前瞻性多中心随机单盲平行对照临床试验，用国产注射用阿奇霉素治疗革兰阳性菌及革兰阴性菌下呼吸道感染性疾病60例，以进口注射用头孢呋辛钠治疗60例作对照药物，观察疗效及安全性。结果：试验药组临床有效率，临床痊愈率，细菌阴转率和细菌消除率依次为91．7％，63．3％，91．3％和87．5％，对照药组依次为90．0％，61．7％，85．7％和85．7％，无统计学差异。不良反应发生率试验药组6．6％，对照药组3．3％，无统计学意义。结论：注射用阿奇霉素是一个安全，有效的治疗下呼吸道感染的抗菌药物。     

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。     

阿奇霉素与红霉素治疗儿童呼吸道支原体感染的比较

目的:比较阿奇霉素与红霉素治疗呼吸道支原体感染的临床疗效及安全性。方法:56例呼吸道支原体感染患儿,采用双盲法分成阿奇霉素治疗组(29例)和红霉素治疗组(27例),观察两组疗效及副作用。结果:阿奇霉素治疗组治愈好转29例(100%),红霉素治疗组治愈好转23例(85.1%),两组疗效比较差异有显著性(P<0.01)。阿奇霉素组平均住院天数(5~8)±(1~62)d,红霉素组平均住院天数(7~4)±(1~52)d,两组比较差异有显著性(P<0.01)。阿奇霉素组体温恢复正常时间(2~2)±(0~8)d,短于红霉素组(2~6)±(1~3)d(P<0.05)。阿奇霉素组胃肠道不良反应发生率为41.3%,红霉素组的发生率88.8%,两组副作用发生率比较差异有显著性(P<0.01)。结论:阿奇霉素治疗儿童呼吸道支原体感染的多项指标均优于红霉素,具有疗效好、安全性高、不良反应少、住院时间短等优点,值得临床推广。     

头孢替安国产品和进口品治疗细菌性感染127例的随机对照临床研究

目的：评价注射用头孢替安国产品治疗细菌性感染的疗效与安全性。方法：以头孢替安国产品为试验药，头孢替安进口品为对照药治疗下呼吸道、尿路和腹腔感染，对其疗效和安全性进行非盲法随机对照试验。结果：两组共入选127例，头孢替安国产品组64例，头孢替安进口品组63例，治疗结果两组的总有效率分别为96．9％(62／64)和98．4％(62／63)，治愈率为65．6％(42／64)和69．8％(44／63)；细菌清除率分别为94．3％(50／53)和98．2％(54／55)；不良反应发生率分别为1．4％(1／73)和2．9％(2／70)，实验室检查异常分别为4．1％(3／73)和5．7％(4／70)。上述结果经统计学处理，差异均无显性。结论：头孢替安国产品治疗下呼吸道、腹腔感染和尿路感染的疗效和安全性与头孢替安进口品相仿。     

A comparison of 5-day courses of dirithromycin and azithromycin in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND: Short-term use of antibiotics has become a common component of the management of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB), particularly in complex cases with productive cough or purulent phlegm. The macrolide antibiotics, particularly second-generation agents such as dirithromycin and azithromycin, are among the antibiotic classes frequently recommended and used to treat upper and lower respiratory infections, including AECB. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the clinical efficacy and tolerability of 5-day courses of dirithromycin and azithromycin given once daily for the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This randomized, investigator-blinded, parallel-group clinical trial was conducted at 5 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were adult (age >35 years) smokers or ex-smokers (smoking history of at least 10 pack-years) with chronic bronchitis and an acute exacerbation, defined by the occurrence of increased dyspnea and/or productive cough and feverishness within 48 hours of enrollment. Before randomization, an attempt was made to obtain a sputum specimen from each patient for Gram's staining and culture. Patients were randomized to receive dirithromycin 500 mg QD for 5 days or azithromycin 500 mg QD on day 1 and 250 mg QD on days 2 to 5. Clinical efficacy was assessed separately by patients and physicians at early (days 7-10) and late (days 25-35) posttreatment visits. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients (48 women, 38 men; mean age, 55 years) with a mean smoking history of 31 pack-years were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Forty-six (54%) patients were randomized to dirithromycin and 40 (47%) patients to azithromycin. Clinical efficacy was reported in a high proportion of patients in both treatment groups, both at the early posttreatment visit (84.8% dirithromycin, 75.7% azithromycin; difference dirithromycin - azithromycin, 9.1%; 95% CI, -8.2 to 26.4) and the late posttreatment visit (95.5% and 86.5%, respectively; difference dirithromycin - azithromycin, 9.0%; 95% CI, -3.7 to 21.6). A similar proportion of patients required a second course of antibiotics over the study period (20.5% dirithromycin, 27.0% azithromycin; difference dirithromycin - azithromycin, -6.6%; 95% CI, -25.2 to 12.1). Only 42 (48.8%) patients were able to produce a sputum sample before receiving study treatment, and of these, only 20 (47.6%) demonstrated a preponderance of neutrophils on Gram's staining. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest comparable clinical efficacy between 5-day courses of once-daily dirithromycin and azithromycin in acute exacerbations of COPD. There were insufficient data to permit meaningful comparison of the bacteriologic efficacy of these macrolide antibiotics.     

阿奇霉素三联疗法根除幽门螺杆菌的疗效观察──附69例报告

目的:观察阿奇霉素三联疗法根除十二指肠球部溃疡病人的幽门螺杆菌(Hp)的临床疗效,对比阿奇霉素三联疗法一周与两周方案的疗效差别。方法:69例经胃镜检查证实为十二指肠球部溃疡并有Hp感染的病人,随机分为两组。A组(35例)口服奥美拉唑40mg每日1次,共2周;阿奇霉素500mg/d,仅疗程开始的头3日口服;阿莫西林500mg口服,每日4次,共2周。B组(34例)奥美拉唑与阿奇霉素的剂量和疗程同A组,阿莫西林500mg口服,每日3次,共1周。疗程结束后停用所有抗生素,4周后胃镜复查溃疡愈合情况,14C-尿素呼气试验复查Hp根除情况。结果:Hp根除率:A组和B组分别为89%(31/35)、85%(29/34),两组比较无显著性差异(P>0.05);溃疡愈合率:A组和B组分别为97%(28/29)、94%(29/31),两组比较无显著性差异(P>0.05);全部病人均完成治疗,仅2例出现恶心,1例轻度腹泻,总不良反应率为4%。结论:①阿奇霉素三联疗法具有Hp根除率高、安全性好、不良反应少及依从性好的优点;②阿奇霉素三联疗法一周方案与两周方案比较疗效相当;③阿奇霉素可作为根除Hp治疗方案中的一个新选择。     

阿奇霉素与头孢克肟治疗小儿细菌性腹泻病疗效比较

目的:评价阿奇霉素对小儿细菌性腹泻病的疗效,并与头孢克肟的治疗效果进行比较。方法:病例选择:2004年7月-11月间我院肠道门诊急性腹泻患儿,共121例,每日腹泻次数≥3次,大便常规镜检白细胞≥10/HP;未用过抗生素,或使用其它抗生素无效。年龄4个月-12岁。阿奇霉素10mg·kg-1,每日1次口服,共64例;头孢克肟5-8mg·kg-1·d-1,分2次口服,共57例。治疗72h判断疗效。结果:阿奇霉素治疗组,显效68.75%(44/64),有效29.69%(19/64),无效1.56%(1/64),总有效率98.44%。头孢克肟治疗组57例,显效64.91%(37/57),有效31.58%(18/57);无效3.51%(2/57);总有效率96.49%。两组疗效无显著差异(X2=0.472,P>0.05)。结论:阿奇霉素治疗小儿细菌性腹泻病临床疗效显著,可选择作为治疗小儿细菌性腹泻病的药物。     

阿奇霉素序贯疗法治疗社区获得性肺炎138例临床评价

目的 :评价阿奇霉素序贯疗法治疗社区获得性肺炎的疗效与安全性。方法 :本研究为多中心、开放、随机对照试验 ,社区获得性肺炎患者被随机分配为试验组接受阿奇霉素 ,对照组接受头孢呋辛 ,均先静脉给药继以口服序贯治疗 ,对照组中疑为非典型病原感染者需全程联合琥乙红霉素口服治疗。结果 :(1)试验组和对照组临床有效率分别为 88.9% (5 6 / 6 3)和92 .2 % (5 9/ 6 4 ) ,临床痊愈率分别为 79.4 % (5 0 / 6 3)和 6 5 .6 % (4 2 / 6 4 )。上述结果经统计学分析差异无显著性。但试验组疗程较对照组显著为短 (P <0 .0 1)。 (2 )试验组 6 3例中病原阳性者 38例 ,其中细菌培养阳性者 32例 ,非典型病原体检测阳性者14例 ,非典型病原体与细菌的混合感染 8例。对照组 6 4例中病原阳性者 4 2例 ,其中细菌培养阳性者 31例 ,非典型病原体检测阳性者 19例 ,非典型病原体与细菌的混合感染 8例。经治疗两组总的细菌清除率分别为 96 .8% (31/ 32 )和 96 .9% (30 /31) ,两组差异无显著性。 (3)试验组不良反应发生率为 2 6 .1% (18/ 6 9) ,显著高于对照组 (8.7% ,6 / 6 9) ,主要表现为试验组发生静脉注射部位局部反应者较多 (11/ 18) ,除 1例中途停药外 ,均系轻度 ,患者可耐受 ,且减缓静脉滴注速度后 ,局部反应明显减少。实     

Comparative efficacy of 5 days of dirithromycin and 7 days of erythromycin in skin and soft tissue infections

We investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of dirithromycin and erythromycin in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections in this double-blind, randomized, multicentre study, in which 439 patients were randomized to treatment with dirithromycin (500 mg daily for 5 days) or erythromycin (250 mg every 6 h for 7 days). All randomized patients were included in the termination analysis, which showed that 187 of 220 (85.0%) dirithromycin recipients and 177 of 219 (80.8%) erythromycin recipients were clinically cured or improved (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.0% to +11.4%). In the termination analysis of the 211 bacteriologically evaluable patients, clinical cure or improvement occurred in 83 of 100 (83%) dirithromycin recipients and in 89 of 111 (80.2%) erythromycin recipients (95% CI -7.8% to +13.4%), and bacteriological eradication occurred in 85 of 100 (85%) and 89 of 111 (80.2%), respectively. Adverse events were similar in incidence and nature between the two groups, except that there was less nausea with dirithromycin (3.6% versus 8.2%; P = 0.042). Ten of 220 (4.5%) dirithromycin recipients and 27 of 219 (12.3%) erythromycin recipients returned >20% of their prescribed medication (P = 0.033). In the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections, dirithromycin (500 mg daily for 5 days) was comparable in efficacy to, and caused significantly less nausea than, erythromycin (250 mg every 6 h for 7 days). Compliance with the dirithromycin regimen was superior to that with the erythromycin regimen.     

Five-day dirithromycin therapy is as effective as seven-day erythromycin therapy for acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis.

In a meta-analysis of two identically designed, well-controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trials, we compared 5 days of dirithromycin with 7 days of erythromycin for acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Five hundred and thirty-one patients were randomized to receive dirithromycin (500 mg od) for 5 days and 526 patients were randomized to receive erythromycin (250 mg qid) for 7 days. Clinical and bacteriological responses were assessed 3-5 days after therapy and at termination from the study. Adverse events were collected from both groups and compared with each other, before and after treatment. Of the 690 patients clinically appraisable at the post-therapy visit, 298 (84.2%) dirithromycin-treated patients and 270 (80.4%) erythromycin-treated patients showed a favourable response. At termination, 273 (77.1%) dirithromycin-treated patients and 243 (72.3%) erythromycin-treated patients showed a favourable response. The microbiological cure was equivalent in the two groups (75% of dirithromycin-treated patients and 74.1% of erythromycin-treated patients showed a favourable response at termination). After therapy, dirithromycin was as effective as erythromycin in eradicating Streptococcus pneumoniae (77.8% vs 90.9%), Haemophilus influenzae (71.7% vs 72.2%), Moraxella catarrhalis (93.3% vs 88.9%) and Staphylococcus aureus (81.8% vs 82.1%). Although not statistically significant, fewer dirithromycin-treated patients reported adverse events than did erythromycin-treated patients. Nausea (6.8% vs 7.8%), headache (7.3% vs 8.2%) and diarrhoea (6.6% vs 9.5%) were the most frequently reported adverse events in both groups. In the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, 5 days of dirithromycin is as effective as 7 days of erythromycin.     

Doxycycline versus azithromycin for treatment of leptospirosis and scrub typhus

Leptospirosis and scrub typhus are important causes of acute fever in Southeast Asia. Options for empirical therapy include doxycycline and azithromycin, but it is unclear whether their efficacies are equivalent. We conducted a multicenter, open, randomized controlled trial with adult patients presenting with acute fever (<15 days), without an obvious focus of infection, at four hospitals in Thailand between July 2003 and January 2005. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either a 7-day course of doxycycline or a 3-day course of azithromycin. The cure rate, fever clearance time, and adverse drug events were compared between the two study groups. A total of 296 patients were enrolled in the study. The cause of acute fever was determined for 151 patients (51%): 69 patients (23.3%) had leptospirosis; 57 patients (19.3%) had scrub typhus; 14 patients (4.7%) had murine typhus; and 11 patients (3.7%) had evidence of both leptospirosis and a rickettsial infection. The efficacy of azithromycin was not inferior to that of doxycycline for the treatment of both leptospirosis and scrub typhus, with comparable fever clearance times in the two treatment arms. Adverse events occurred more frequently in the doxycycline group than in the azithromycin group (27.6% and 10.6%, respectively; P = 0.02). In conclusion, doxycycline is an affordable and effective choice for the treatment of both leptospirosis and scrub typhus. Azithromycin was better tolerated than doxycycline but is more expensive and less readily available.     

拜复乐治疗支原体或衣原体性宫颈炎疗效观察

目的研究拜复乐治疗支原体或衣原体性宫颈炎的疗效。方法将120例患者随机分为治疗组61例和对照组59例。治疗组口服拜复乐400 mg,1次/d,7 d为1个疗程;对照组口服阿奇霉素分散片500 mg,1次/d,7 d为1个疗程。结果治疗组治愈率达88.5%,对照组治愈率66.1%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论拜复乐治疗效果优于阿奇霉素,是治疗支原体、衣原体性宫颈炎的一种有效、安全的药物。     

Efficacy and safety of azithromycin as monotherapy or combined with metronidazole compared with two standard multidrug regimens for the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease

The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy of azithromycin, alone or with metronidazole, versus two standard multidrug regimens for the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Patients with PID were treated with once-daily intravenous (i.v.) azithromycin 500 mg for 1 day or 2 days followed by once-daily azithromycin 250 mg orally for a total of 7 days, alone or with three-times-daily metronidazole 400 mg or 500 mg i.v. then orally for a total of 12-14 days. The comparators were either metronidazole + doxycycline + cefoxitin + probenecid or doxycycline + amoxycillin/clavulanate given at standard recommended doses for up to 21 days. In total, 309 patients were treated for PID. The diagnosis was confirmed laparoscopically in 74.8% of patients. Rates of clinical success for azithromycin, alone (97.1%) or with metronidazole (98.1%), were comparable to those for the comparator regimens (94.6%). Eradication rates for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Mycoplasma hominis and anaerobes were also comparable for each of the treatment groups. Both azithromycin regimens were well tolerated. In conclusion, azithromycin, alone or with metronidazole, provides a shorter, simpler treatment option for the successful management of acute PID.     

口服国产司帕沙星片治疗急性细菌性感染多中心随机对照研究

目的评价国产司帕沙星片治疗急性细菌性感染的临床疗效与安全性.方法以国产洛美沙星片为对照药进行随机对照研究,共治疗各种细菌性感染231例,其中司帕沙星组117例、洛美沙星组114例.司帕沙星200～300mg,每日1次口服,疗程5～14d;洛美沙星300mg,每日2次口服,疗程5～14 d.结果司帕沙星组与对照组的痊愈率和有效率分别为84.62%与74.56%和94.87%与92.98%.细菌清除率分别为94.28%和92.02%.组间比较差异无显著性(P＞0.05).两组的不良反应发生率分别为7.69%和11.40%(P＞0.05),反应多呈轻度,勿需处理可自行缓解.结论司帕沙星抗菌谱广,抗菌活性强,为治疗中、轻度急性细菌性感染安全有效的口服抗菌药物.