• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

一项关于头孢曲松与标准疗法治疗下呼吸道感染的随机多中心研究。

A randomised, multicentre study of ceftriaxone versus standard therapy in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections.

作者信息

de Klerk G J, van Steijn J H, Lobatto S, Jaspers C A, van Veldhuizen W C, Hensing C A, Bunnik M C, Geraedts W H, Dofferhof A S, Van Den Berg J, Melis J H, Hoepelman A I

机构信息

Hospital Hilversum, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1999 Jul;12(2):121-7. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(99)00037-0.

DOI:10.1016/s0924-8579(99)00037-0
PMID:10418756
Abstract

In this study the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of i.v. ceftriaxone 1 g once daily (CTX) was compared with standard i.v. antibiotic treatment (STD) for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). STD was given according to the guidelines of the American Thoracic Society and consisted of either cefuroxime 1500 mg three times daily (q8h), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 1200 mg q8h or ceftriaxone 2 g once daily; each with or without a macrolide. After a minimum of 5 days i.v. therapy, patients could be switched to oral therapy. One hundred patients were enrolled in the study; 52 patients received CTX and 48 STD. Groups were comparable with respect to demographic and baseline characteristics. Seventy patients had a confirmed diagnosis of pneumonia. Twenty-nine patients had a severe type I exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. In one patient the diagnosis of LRTI could not be confirmed. In approximately 50% of the patients a microbiological diagnosis could be made. The most important isolated pathogens from sputum and blood were (positive blood cultures in brackets): Streptococcus pneumoniae 14 (9) and Haemophilus influenzae 16. Mean duration of i.v. therapy was 7.4 days in both groups. Average duration of hospitalisation was 15.0 days for CTX patients and 15.9 days for STD patients. Overall cure and improvement rate at the end of treatment was 47 (90%) for patients receiving ceftriaxone 1 g compared to 37 (77%) for patients receiving standard therapy. Pathogens were eradicated or presumed to be eradicated in 84% of the CTX patients and in 76% of the STD patients. Mean total costs per treatment were lower for CTX than for STD treatment: NLG 169 versus 458. These results show, that i.v. ceftriaxone 1 g once daily is as effective as standard therapy in the treatment of LRTI and that its use reduces treatment costs, in view of the multiple daily dosing regimens of most standard therapies.

摘要

在本研究中,将每日一次静脉注射1克头孢曲松(CTX)与治疗下呼吸道感染(LRTI)的标准静脉抗生素治疗(STD)的疗效和成本效益进行了比较。STD根据美国胸科学会的指南给予,包括每日三次(每8小时一次)1500毫克头孢呋辛、每8小时一次1200毫克阿莫西林/克拉维酸或每日一次2克头孢曲松;每种药物可加或不加大环内酯类药物。在至少5天的静脉治疗后,患者可转为口服治疗。100名患者纳入本研究;52名患者接受CTX治疗,48名患者接受STD治疗。两组在人口统计学和基线特征方面具有可比性。70名患者确诊为肺炎。29名患者患有严重的I型慢性支气管炎加重。1名患者的LRTI诊断无法确诊。约50%的患者可做出微生物学诊断。痰液和血液中最重要的分离病原体为(括号内为血培养阳性):肺炎链球菌14例(9例)和流感嗜血杆菌16例。两组的平均静脉治疗持续时间均为7.4天。CTX组患者的平均住院时间为15.0天,STD组患者为15.9天。接受1克头孢曲松治疗的患者在治疗结束时的总体治愈和改善率为47例(90%),而接受标准治疗的患者为37例(77%)。84%的CTX组患者和76%的STD组患者的病原体被根除或推测被根除。CTX组每次治疗的平均总成本低于STD组:169荷兰盾对458荷兰盾。这些结果表明,鉴于大多数标准疗法的每日多次给药方案,每日一次静脉注射1克头孢曲松在治疗LRTI方面与标准疗法一样有效,且其使用可降低治疗成本。

相似文献

1
A randomised, multicentre study of ceftriaxone versus standard therapy in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections.一项关于头孢曲松与标准疗法治疗下呼吸道感染的随机多中心研究。
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1999 Jul;12(2):121-7. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(99)00037-0.
2
Cost-effectiveness of ceftriaxone in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adult hospital patients. A pharmaco-economic study based on a meta-analysis.头孢曲松治疗成年住院患者社区获得性肺炎的成本效益。一项基于荟萃分析的药物经济学研究。
S Afr Med J. 1998 Mar;88(3):251-5.
3
Usefulness of betalactam therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in the era of drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae: a randomized study of amoxicillin-clavulanate and ceftriaxone.在耐多药肺炎链球菌时代β-内酰胺类疗法用于社区获得性肺炎的有效性:阿莫西林-克拉维酸与头孢曲松的一项随机研究
Microb Drug Resist. 2001 Spring;7(1):85-96. doi: 10.1089/107662901750152864.
4
Clinical efficacy, tolerability, and cost savings associated with the use of open-label metronidazole plus ceftriaxone once daily compared with ticarcillin/clavulanate every 6 hours as empiric treatment for diabetic lower-extremity infections in older males.与每6小时使用替卡西林/克拉维酸相比,每日一次使用开放标签甲硝唑加头孢曲松作为老年男性糖尿病下肢感染经验性治疗的临床疗效、耐受性和成本节约情况。
Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2004 Sep;2(3):181-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2004.09.006.
5
Azithromycin for acute lower respiratory tract infections.阿奇霉素用于治疗急性下呼吸道感染。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18(4):CD001954. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001954.pub2.
6
Cost-effectiveness of gatifloxacin vs ceftriaxone with a macrolide for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.加替沙星与头孢曲松联合大环内酯类药物治疗社区获得性肺炎的成本效益分析
Chest. 2001 May;119(5):1439-48. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.5.1439.
7
Clinical comparison of cefuroxime axetil and amoxicillin/clavulanate in the treatment of patients with secondary bacterial infections of acute bronchitis.头孢呋辛酯与阿莫西林/克拉维酸治疗急性支气管炎继发细菌感染患者的临床比较
Clin Ther. 1995 Sep-Oct;17(5):861-74. doi: 10.1016/0149-2918(95)80064-6.
8
Comparison of once-daily cephalosporin regimens for community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections in patients with chronic lung disease.慢性肺病患者社区获得性下呼吸道感染每日一次头孢菌素治疗方案的比较
Clin Ther. 1989 May-Jun;11(3):304-14.
9
[Multicentre, randomized, prospective and comparative study of ceftriaxone, cefotaxime and cefuroxime in treating mild to moderate respiratory tract infection].头孢曲松、头孢噻肟和头孢呋辛治疗轻至中度呼吸道感染的多中心、随机、前瞻性对照研究
Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi. 1998 Sep;21(9):528-31.
10
[Prospective and comparative study between cefuroxime, ceftriaxone and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia].头孢呋辛、头孢曲松和阿莫西林-克拉维酸治疗社区获得性肺炎的前瞻性对比研究
Rev Esp Quimioter. 1998 Jun;11(2):132-8.

引用本文的文献

1
Considerations about antibiotic management for community-acquired pneumonia: unmet needs and future perspectives.社区获得性肺炎抗生素管理的考量:未满足的需求与未来展望
Intern Emerg Med. 2024 Jan;19(1):9-11. doi: 10.1007/s11739-023-03451-0. Epub 2023 Oct 19.
2
Comparison of ceftriaxone plus macrolide and ampicillin/sulbactam plus macrolide in treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia without risk factors for aspiration: an open-label, quasi-randomized, controlled trial.头孢曲松联合大环内酯类药物与氨苄西林/舒巴坦联合大环内酯类药物治疗无吸入风险因素的社区获得性肺炎患者的比较:一项开放标签、拟随机、对照试验。
BMC Pulm Med. 2020 Jun 5;20(1):160. doi: 10.1186/s12890-020-01198-4.
3
1g versus 2 g daily intravenous ceftriaxone in the treatment of community onset pneumonia - a propensity score analysis of data from a Japanese multicenter registry.
1g 与 2g 日剂量静脉注射头孢曲松治疗社区获得性肺炎 - 来自日本多中心注册登记研究的倾向评分分析数据。
BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Dec 26;19(1):1079. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4552-8.
4
Single daily dosing ceftriaxone and metronidazole vs standard triple antibiotic regimen for perforated appendicitis in children: a prospective randomized trial.儿童穿孔性阑尾炎每日单次剂量头孢曲松和甲硝唑与标准三联抗生素方案的比较:一项前瞻性随机试验
J Pediatr Surg. 2008 Jun;43(6):981-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.02.018.