头孢匹罗头孢吡肟头孢曲松治疗下呼吸道感染的疗效比较

目的比较头孢匹罗、头孢吡肟、头孢曲松治疗下呼吸道轻中度感染的疗效和安全性。方法在139例患者中进行多中心、前瞻性、随机比较。头孢匹罗组（Ⅰ组）46例，头孢吡肟组（Ⅱ组）48例，头孢曲松组（Ⅲ组）45例。各组所用药物均为2g／a，静脉注射，疗程7d。结果3组临床疗效分别为82％、79％、60％；细菌阳性率48％（67／139），细菌清除率分别为80％、78％、56％，3组比较Ⅰ、Ⅱ组间差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。Ⅰ、Ⅱ组与Ⅲ组间差异均有显著性（P〈0．05）。治疗过程中3组患者无1例出现皮疹及其他不良反应。结论头孢匹罗、头孢吡肟、头孢曲松各用2g／d治疗轻中度下呼吸道感染安全有效，且1周疗程足够。但在治疗这些疾病时，可先选用头孢曲松、当头孢曲松治疗无效时，再选用头孢匹罗或头孢吡肟。

Comparative stuely of cefpirome.Cefepime and ceftriaxone in treating mild to moderate respiratory tract infection

Objective The objective of this comparative study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of cefpirome, cefepime and ceftriaxone. Methods In this multicentre, kandomized, prospective and comparative study. 139 patients were divided into three groups （ Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ）. 46 in group I （ treated with eefpi- rome） ,48 in group 11 （treated with eefepime）,45 in group m （treated with ceftriaxone）,All of patients re- ceived 2 g of drug once a day and were able to make an evaluation. The course of treatment were 7 days. Results The overall efficacy （ebacteriological eradication plus clinical cure or clear improvement ） of eefpirome. eefepime and ceftriaxone were 82% ,79% ,60%. The eradication rate for three groups were 80% ,78% ,56%, The difference between the group I and group Ⅱ was no significant（ P 〉 0.05 ） , and the difference among the three groups was prominent （ P 〈 0.05 ）, NO adverse events occured. Conclusions Data obtained in our study indicate that for the majority of patients with lower respiratory tract infections, cefpirme, cefepime and eeftriaxone （2 g/d）are effective and safe and 7 days therapy is enough, but the use of cefpirome and cefepime is more convenient.