莫西沙星序贯治疗社区获得性肺炎临床研究

目的研究莫西沙星治疗社区获得性肺炎的临床疗效、安全性。方法216例轻中度社区获得性肺炎患者随机分为3组。A组（观察组）予莫西沙星序贯治疗,B组（对照组）予左氧氟沙星序贯治疗,C组（对照组）予头孢曲松钠／头孢泊肟酯联合阿奇霉素常规序贯治疗。结果①A组、B组和C组痊愈率分别为70．3％（52／74）、67．1％（47／70）和47．2％（34／72）,临床有效率分别为86．5％（64／74）、82．9％（58／70）和72．2％（52／72）,细菌清除率分别84．8％（28／33）、82．1％（23／28）和58．1％（18／31）,3个指标中,A、B两组间差异均无统计学意义,A、C两组间差异均有统计学意义;②A组、B组和C组静脉注射时间分别为（2．27±1．14）d、（2．33±1．15）d和（3．03±1．08）d,A、B两组间差异无统计学意义,A、C两组间差异有统计学意义;③A组、B组和C组不良反应发生率分别为5．4％（4／74）、5．7％（4／70）和13．9％（10／72）,A、B两组间差异无统计学意义,A、C两组间差异有统计学意义。结论莫西沙星序贯治疗社区获得性肺炎效果更为确切、安全。     

莫西沙星序贯治疗老年社区获得性肺炎疗效观察

随机选择老年社区获得性肺炎患者132例,分为治疗组和对照组各66例。治疗组应用莫西沙星注射液,症状得到改善后,替换为莫西沙星片;对照组应用左氧氟沙星。均进行10d的治疗,结束后观察疗效、除菌率。结果治疗组有效率为91%,高于对照组的61%,差异具有显著性（P〈0.01）;治疗组除菌率为94%,高于对照组的68%,差异具有显著性（P〈0.05）。序贯治疗老年社区获得性肺炎的临床疗效良好。     

莫西沙星序贯治疗社区获得性下呼吸道感染

目的评价莫西沙星序贯治疗社区获得性肺炎(CAP)和慢性支气管炎急性加重期(AECB)等下呼吸道感染的疗效和安全性以及治疗费用。方法88例中、重度下呼吸道感染患者随机分为莫西沙星序贯治疗组(序贯组)和莫西沙星静脉滴注组(对照组),其中序贯组44例,于治疗当天开始,给予莫西沙星注射液400mg/250mL静脉滴注,每日1次,3~5d后,换用莫西沙星片剂400mg口服,每日1次,总疗程7~10d;对照组44例给予莫西沙星注射液400mg/250mL静脉滴注,每日1次,总疗程7~10d。结果①序贯组和对照组痊愈率分别为65.9%(29/44)和68.2%(30/44),临床有效率分别为88.6%(39/44)和90.9%(40/44);②细菌清除率分别为93.7%(30/32)和94.4%(34/36)。痊愈率和细菌清除率两组差异无统计学意义;③序贯组和对照组平均住院费用分别为(3658±456)元和(6825±387)元;序贯组和对照组平均住院日分别为(8.8±2.2)d和(13.7±1.5)d。两组间比较差异均有统计学意义;④不良反应发生率分别为序贯组11.4%(5/44)和对照组13.6%(6/44),均可耐受,无中途停药者,两组间差异无统计学意义。结论莫西沙星序贯治疗社区获得性呼吸道感染可以获得与莫西沙星全程静脉滴注给药相似的疗效,其不良反应少见,并且可以显著节省治疗费用,缩短住院时间,值得临床推广应用。     

莫西沙星与左氧氟沙星序贯治疗老年社区获得性肺炎效果比较

目的 比较莫西沙星与左氧氟沙星序贯治疗老年社区获得性肺炎的效果。方法 选取116例老年社区获得性肺炎患者,按照随机数字表法分组,每组各58例。将左氧氟沙星序贯治疗方案应用于对照组的患者,将莫西沙星序贯治疗方案用于观察组患者,对比两组患者的治疗效果、相关的临床症状消退时间及药物应用后出现的不良反应发生率、炎性细胞因子及肺功能指标。结果 观察组患者治疗有效率为94.83%,明显高于对照组的77.59%(P <0.05);观察组患者退热时间、咳嗽消失时间、咳痰消失时间、肺部湿啰音消失时间、住院时间均短于对照组,治疗3～5 d改口服用药比例高于对照组,消化道不适、静脉炎、皮疹等不良反应发生率低于对照组（均P <0.05）;两组患者治疗后降钙素原（PCT）、C反应蛋白（CRP）、可溶性髓样细胞表达的激发受体1(sTREM-1)、白细胞介素-6(IL-6)水平均低于治疗前,且观察组均低于对照组（均P <0.05）;两组患者治疗后肺功能指标均高于治疗前,且观察组高于对照组（P <0.05）。结论 莫西沙星序贯治疗老年社区获得性肺炎效果更好,症状缓解速度快,对炎症抑制力强,有助...     

莫西沙星序贯方案对高龄社区获得性肺炎患者疗效、病程及免疫功能的影响

目的研究莫西沙星序贯治疗方案对高龄社区获得性肺炎患者疗效、病程及免疫功能的影响。方法选择2015年1~12月在北京市通州区妇幼保健院接受治疗的74例高龄社区获得性肺炎患者,随机分为对照组和序贯组,每组各37例。对照组给予莫西沙星静脉滴注,序贯组给予莫西沙星静脉滴注联合口服序贯治疗。结果序贯组患者的总有效率高达94.59%,对照组患者的总有效率为72.97%;序贯组患者的啰音消失时间为(3.85±1.27)d、咳嗽咳痰消失时间为(5.93±1.84)d、发热消失时间为(6.05±2.12)d,临床症状消失时间短于对照组(P<0.05);序贯组患者T细胞亚群CD3~+、CD4~+和CD4~+/CD8~+水平分别为(68.94±8.12)%、(35.64±4.25)%和1.36±0.17,高于对照组,CD8~+水平为(28.26±3.31)%,低于对照组,以上差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论莫西沙星序贯治疗方案可以提高高龄社区获得性肺炎患者的临床疗效和免疫功能,利于患者康复。     

莫西沙星序贯疗法治疗社区获得性呼吸道感染临床观察

目的探讨莫西沙星序贯疗法治疗社区获得性呼吸道感染的临床效果。方法社区获得性呼吸道感染患者180例,随机分为顺(序)贯组和常规组各90例。常规组采用莫西沙星0.4 g,每日一次,每250 ml滴注时间不少于90 min,持续静脉滴注;顺贯组上述剂量莫西沙星,静脉给药3~5 d,体温正常,外周血白细胞正常,病情稳定者改为口服莫西沙星0.4 g每日一次。结果两组临床治疗效果比较无显著差异(P>0.05);顺贯组莫西沙星静脉滴注时间短于常规组,顺贯组药物不良反应少于常规组(P<0.05)。结论莫西沙星序贯疗法治疗社区获得性呼吸道感染是较经济、有效的治疗方法。     

莫西沙星治疗社区获得性肺炎的疗效观察

目的:评价莫西沙星针剂治疗社区获得性肺炎的疗效和安全性。方法:将85例社区获得性肺炎住院患者随机分为莫西沙星组(43例)和对照组(头孢哌酮/舒巴坦 阿奇霉素42例),疗程7~14 d。治疗前后观察临床症状、体征,进行X线胸片和实验室检查并对比。结果:莫西沙星针剂治疗社区获得性肺炎患者的临床疗效与对照组相同。社区获得性肺炎患者对莫西沙星有较好的耐受性,且依从性好。结论:单独应用莫西沙星针剂可作为社区获得性肺炎治疗可选方案之一。     

治疗急性肺炎中莫西沙星的序贯应用

目的观察莫西沙星序贯治疗急性肺炎患者的临床治疗效果。方法采用莫西沙星注射液400 mg,每日1次静脉滴注,症状明显改善后改为片剂口服继续治疗,疗程为7～10 d。完成病例52例,观察治疗前后症状、细菌学、药敏情况与并发症。结果治疗有效率、细菌清除率、不良反应发生率分别为90.91%、93.94%、9.09%。结论莫西沙星序贯治疗急性肺炎安全、有效,有较高的临床价值。     

莫西沙星短程治疗社区获得性肺炎

目的评价莫西沙星短程治疗社区获得性肺炎(CAP)的疗效及安全性。方法87例轻中度CAP患者随机分为两组。对照组(传统疗程组)予莫西沙星静脉治疗10 d;短程治疗组予莫西沙星静脉治疗5 d。结果①对照组和短程治疗组痊愈率分别为68.2%(30/44)和65.1%(28/43),临床有效率分别为90.9%(40/44)和88.4%(38/43),细菌清除率分别为88.2%(30/34)和87.9%(29/33);这三个指标中,两组间比较差异均无统计学意义。②对照组和短程治疗组不良反应发生率分别为9.1%(4/44)和7.0%(3/43),两组间比较差异无统计学意义。结论莫西沙星短程治疗社区获得性肺炎效果与莫西沙星传统疗程治疗相似,较安全。     

莫西沙星序贯疗法治疗下呼吸道感染的疗效观察

目的评价莫西沙星序贯疗法治疗下呼吸道感染的临床疗效。方法将106例下呼吸道感染患者随机分为观察组和对照组各53例,观察组给予莫西沙星序贯治疗,对照组应用左氧氟沙星序贯治疗,观察并比较两组的临床疗效、细菌清除率及不良反应。结果观察组总有效率为96.2%,对照组总有效率为92.5%,两组总有效率比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。观察组细菌阳性率为90.6%(48/53),细菌清除率为95.8%(46/48),对照组细菌阳性率为88.7%(47/53),细菌清除率为83.0%(39/47),观察组细菌清除率显著高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。药物敏感试验,莫西沙星敏感率为95.4%(83/87),左氧氟沙星敏感率为86.2%(75/87),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。主要不良反应有恶心、食欲减退、腹泻等。观察组不良反应发生率为3.8%,对照组为5.7%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论莫西沙星序贯疗法的临床疗效确切,不良反应小,是治疗下呼吸道感染较为理想的方法     

Prognostic factors in patients hospitalized with community-acquired aspiration pneumonia

IntroductionPatients with aspiration pneumonia (AP) exhibit higher mortality than those with non-AP. However, data regarding predictors of short-term prognosis in patients with community-acquired AP are limited.MethodsPatients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) were retrospectively classified into aspiration pneumonia (AP) and non-AP groups. The AP patients were further divided into nonsurvivors and survivors by 30-day mortality, and various clinical variables were compared between the groups.ResultsOf 1249 CAP patients, 254 (20.3%) were classified into the AP group, of whom 76 patients (29.9%) died within 30 days. CURB-65, pneumonia severity index (PSI), and Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society criteria for severe CAP (SCAP) showed only modest prognostic performance for the prediction of 30-day mortality (c-statistics, 0.635, 0.647, and 0.681, respectively). Along with the PSI and SCAP, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) and blood biomarkers, including, N-terminal of prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and albumin, were independent predictors of 30-day mortality. In models based on clinical prediction rules, including CURB-65, PSI, and SCAP, the addition of ECOG-PS further improved their c-statistics compared to the clinical prediction rules alone. In the four combinations based on SCAP, ECOG-PS, and two blood biomarkers (NT-proBNP and albumin), the c-statistics further increased to reach approximately 0.8.ConclusionsCURB-65, PSI, and SCAP exhibited only modest discriminatory power in predicting the 30-day mortality of patients with community-acquired AP. The addition of performance status and blood biomarkers, including NT-proBNP and albumin, further increased prognostic performance, showing good predictive accuracy in the SCAP-based model.     

Costs associated with shorter duration of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate severe community-acquired pneumonia

OBJECTIVES: The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy in patients with uncomplicated pneumonia may be shorter than that recommended in the current guidelines. A shorter duration will probably also lead to a cost reduction. This study evaluates the costs associated with 3 versus 8 day antibiotic therapy and subsequent follow-up in patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate-severe community-acquired pneumonia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The economic evaluation was based on primary resource utilization data collected within the framework of a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial. As 3 day therapy was shown to be clinically not inferior to 8 day therapy, the cost-minimization analysis was performed based on direct medical and indirect non-medical costs, estimated from a societal perspective for the 28 days following hospital admission. RESULTS: Lower costs of shorter therapy during hospital admission (euro 209 lower) were partially offset by higher costs for primary healthcare providers (euro 66 higher). The average costs generated per patient by resource utilization during admission and follow-up were estimated as euro 3,959 in the 3 day group versus euro 4,102 in the 8 day group (difference euro 143 in favour of shorter therapy). The difference was affected by changes in assumptions concerning the unit costs for hospital stay but was consistently in favour of shorter therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter duration of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients with uncomplicated pneumonia does not result in a substantial substitution of resource utilization to primary healthcare providers. As 3 day antibiotic therapy does not lead to inferior clinical results, these findings support a 3 day therapy as a more efficient strategy.     

莫西沙星注射液治疗中-重度社区获得性肺炎疗效观察

目的评价莫西沙星注射液治疗中、重度社区获得性肺炎(CAP)的临床应用价值。方法采用前瞻性设计,将82例中、重度CAP患者随机分为两组:①治疗组:40例．给予莫西沙星注射液．400mg静脉滴注．每天1次．疗程为7～14 d;②对照组:42例,给予头孢他啶或头孢哌酮或阿莫西林-舒巴坦 阿奇霉素联合用药．疗程7～14 d;观察细菌清除率、临床疗效、体温降至37．5℃时间、治疗4 d后Fine积分变化、显著好转所需时间、住院天数及不良反应。结果治疗组和对照组有效率及细菌清除率分别为95．0％、92．9％和93．7％、88．2％,两组比较差异无显著性(P>0．05);但治疗组体温降至37．5℃时间、显著好转所需时间、住院时间(分别为2．1±1．0,3．3±1．5和9．1±1．2)d均较对照组(分别为4．2±1．4,5．4±1．3和11．6±1．3)d明显缩短(P均<0．01),治疗组Fine积分值(25．62±5．24)下降较对照组(20．17±4．12)明显．差异有显著性(P<0.01);不良反应少于对照组,有统计学意义。结论新一代喹诺酮类药物莫西沙星可作为经验性治疗中、重度CAP适宜选用的药物。     

Adherence to ATS guidelines for hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of care and antibiotic utilization for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) throughout a group of not-for-profit hospitals. METHODs: A retrospective chart review of patients from community hospitals with a diagnosis of pneumonia at discharge admitted from December 1997 to May 1998. Data were collected based on American Thoracic Society (ATS) criteria. RESULTS: Medical records of 330 patients were reviewed; mortality was 7%. Using ATS guidelines, 51 (15.5%) patients were not treated with recommended antimicrobial therapy. Of these patients, 14 had nonsevere cases of CAP and 37 cases were severe. Factors found to be associated with in-hospital mortality included nonadherence to ATS guidelines (OR 4.46; 95% CI 1.38 to 14.43), decreased urine output (OR 7.72; 95% CI 1.70 to 35.04), and increasing age (OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12). Significant predictors of length of stay (LOS) included age, nonadherence to ATS criteria, suspected aspiration, discharge status, low pulse oximetry on admission, decreased urine output, use of vasopressor medications, and interstitial lung disease; More than 80% of patients had at least one culture performed, but only 27.5% of these cultures were positive. The most cpmmonly prescribed antibiotic was cefuroxime injection, representing 25% of the antibiotic orders. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CAP treated inconsistently with ATS guidelines had a 4.46-d higher risk of inpatient mortality and had significantly longer LOS.     

Comparison of beta-lactam and macrolide combination therapy versus fluoroquinolone monotherapy in hospitalized Veterans Affairs patients with community-acquired pneumonia

Data comparing the treatment outcomes of the two most frequently recommended empirical antibiotic regimens for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)--combination therapy with an extended-spectrum beta-lactam and a macrolide (BL+M) or fluoroquinolone (F) monotherapy--for patients with severe CAP are sparse. The purpose of this study was to compare empirical BL+M combination therapy with F monotherapy for Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with severe CAP. This retrospective study included patients with CAP who received empirical therapy with BL+M or F between October 1999 and May 2003 in the Upstate New York VA Network. Outcome measures were 14-day mortality, 30-day mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Severe CAP was defined as a class V pneumonia severity index (PSI). During the study period, 261 patients received BL+M and 254 received F. Disease severity was similar for the two treatment groups at admission, and the presence of tachycardia was the only difference noted. For PSI class V patients, there were lower 14-day and 30-day mortality rates with BL+M than with F (14-day rates, 8.2% versus 26.8% [P = 0.02]; 30-day rates, 18.4% versus 36.6% [P = 0.05]). No differences in mortality between treatment groups were noted for the lower PSI classes. The overall median LOS was significantly longer for the BL+M combination group than for the F monotherapy group (6.0 days versus 5.0 days, respectively [P = 0.01]), but no difference in LOS was noted among PSI class V patients. Our study showed that improved outcomes may be realized with BL+M in cases of severe CAP. A randomized clinical study is warranted based on these results.     

Ampicillin/sulbactam for children hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia

Childhood community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, but studies on the treatment of children hospitalized with CAP are limited. Although ampicillin/sulbactam is frequently used to treat the pediatric population there are very limited data about the effect of the parenteral form for childhood CAP. Hence, a retrospective study was conducted to assess clinical response to empirical parenteral ampicillin/sulbactam among children hospitalized with CAP. A total of 501 children with presumed bacterial etiology and treated with intravenous ampicillin/sulbactam were included in the study. Treatment was defined as failure if the initial ampicillin/sulbactam therapy was changed because of no clinical improvement 72 h or more after its use or clinical worsening at any time. Thirty-one (6.2%) children needed treatment change whereas 470 (93.8%) were treated successfully with ampicillin/sulbactam. In multivariate analysis, male gender [OR (95%CI): 3.32 (1.37–8.04), p = 0.008], CRP levels [OR (95%CI) 1.04 (1.01–1.08), p = 0.024], and existence of pleural effusion [OR (95%CI) 5.74 (2.17–15.15), p = 0.0001] were found to be significantly associated with treatment failure for the whole study group. For the subgroup of children between 3 and 60 months of age; respiratory rate [OR (95%CI) 1.06 (1.02–1.10), p = 0.0006] was also found to be an additional risk factor. In conclusion, this is the largest study showing that empiric parenteral ampicillin/sulbactam is effective, safe, and well tolerated for treatment of children hospitalized with CAP. However, pleural effusion was found to be the main factor associated with treatment failure.     

Effect of macrolides as part of initial empiric therapy on medical outcomes for hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of hospitalized patients receiving a nonpseudomonal third-generation cephalosporin with or without a macrolide for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). BACKGROUND: The initial treatment of CAP is usually based on empirically selected antibiotic therapy. The need for coverage of atypical pathogens in hospitalized patients is widely debated, and regional variations may exist. METHODS: All patients admitted to a community hospital or to a university hospital for 1 year who were aged > or =18 years and had a principal discharge diagnosis of pneumonia with no organism specified according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification were evaluated. Each patient's medical chart was reviewed by a clinical pharmacist at each facility. The following information was collected for each patient using a standardized form: demographic characteristics, coexisting illnesses, length of hospital and intensive care unit stays, antibiotic regimens, length of parenteral and oral therapy, laboratory and radiographic findings (ie, blood urea nitrogen, glucose, hematocrit, sodium, PO2, pH, and pleural effusion), physical examination results, and mortality. Patients treated with a nonpseudomonal third-generation cephalosporin with or without a macrolide were included in this analysis. Categoric variables were compared using the chi-square test or the Fisher exact test, and continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 213 patients met the entry criteria and were treated with a nonpseudomonal third-generation cephalosporin with (116 patients) or without (97 patients) a macrolide. The mean (+/- SD) age of the patients was 62.2+/-19.6 years; 47% were male. The most common comorbid conditions were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, and cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Of the 116 patients who received a macrolide, the majority (66%) received erythromycin. Other macrolides used were clarithromycin (19%) and oral azithromycin (15%). There were no statistical differences between patients who did and did not receive a macrolide in terms of comorbid illnesses, length of hospital stay (5.2+/-2.8 vs 5.2+/-3.4 days, respectively), length of intravenous antibiotic therapy (4.4+/-2.5 vs 4.1+/-2.3 days, respectively), or mortality (0.9% vs 3.1%, respectively; P = 0.333). The only difference between the groups was in age. Those patients who received a macrolide were significantly younger than those who received only a nonpseudomonal third-generation cephalosporin (57.4+/-19.2 years vs 67.9+/-18.5 years; P < 0.001). However, when age and severity of illness were taken into account, no difference existed between the patients who received a nonpseudomonal third-generation cephalosporin alone or in combination with a macrolide. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the addition of a macrolide to a nonpseudomonal third-generation cephalosporin as initial therapy for the treatment of CAP may not be necessary. A randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing a nonpseudomonal third-generation cephalosporin alone and in combination with a macrolide is warranted.