Bowman R J, Sillah A, Van Dehn C, Goode V M, Muqit M M, Johnson G J, Milligan P, Rowley J, Faal H, Bailey R L
International Centre for Eye Health, London, United Kingdom. National Eye Care Program of The Gambia, Banjul. University of Maastricht Medical School, The Netherlands.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Dec;41(13):4074-9.
World Health Organization guidelines for antibiotic treatment of trachoma currently include a 6-week course of tetracycline eye ointment twice daily or a single dose of oral azithromycin. Previous trials have shown similar efficacy of these two alternatives when administration of the ointment was carefully supervised. It is believed, however, that azithromycin may be a more effective treatment in practice, and the purpose of this study was to test that hypothesis.
A masked randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare azithromycin and tetracycline under practical operational conditions-i.e., without supervision of the administration of the ointment. Three hundred fourteen children aged 6 months to 10 years with clinically active trachoma were recruited and individually randomized to receive one of the two treatments. Follow-up visits were conducted at 10 weeks and 6 months. The outcome was resolution of disease (clinical "cure").
Children allocated to azithromycin were significantly more likely to have resolved disease than those allocated to tetracycline, both at 10 weeks (68% versus 51%; cure rate ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.59; P = 0.007) and at 6 months (88% versus 73%; cure rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.34; P = 0.004). Azithromycin was particularly effective for intense inflammation (P = 0.023, Fisher's exact test).
Single-dose oral azithromycin was a more effective treatment for active trachoma than tetracycline ointment as applied by caregivers. The high cure rate achieved with tetracycline in this study in the absence of supervision and the significantly higher costs of azithromycin, suggest that in the absence of donation programs, switching routine treatment from tetracycline to azithromycin would not be a good use of resources.
世界卫生组织沙眼抗生素治疗指南目前包括为期6周的四环素眼膏每日两次疗程或单剂量口服阿奇霉素。先前的试验表明,在仔细监督眼膏给药的情况下,这两种治疗方法疗效相似。然而,人们认为阿奇霉素在实际应用中可能是一种更有效的治疗方法,本研究的目的是验证这一假设。
进行了一项双盲随机对照试验,以比较在实际操作条件下(即不监督眼膏给药)阿奇霉素和四环素的疗效。招募了314名6个月至10岁临床活动性沙眼患儿,并将其随机分为两组接受两种治疗之一。在10周和6个月时进行随访。观察指标为疾病缓解(临床“治愈”)。
无论是在10周时(68%对51%;治愈率比为1.31;95%置信区间[CI]为1.08 - 1.59;P = 0.007)还是在6个月时(88%对73%;治愈率比为1.19;95%CI为1.06 - 1.34;P = 0.004),分配接受阿奇霉素治疗的儿童疾病缓解的可能性均显著高于分配接受四环素治疗的儿童。阿奇霉素对重度炎症特别有效(P = 0.023,Fisher精确检验)。
单剂量口服阿奇霉素治疗活动性沙眼比护理人员应用的四环素眼膏更有效。本研究中在无监督情况下四环素仍取得了较高治愈率,且阿奇霉素成本显著更高,这表明在没有捐赠项目的情况下,将常规治疗从四环素改为阿奇霉素并非资源的良好利用方式。