• 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

氨曲南与氯霉素治疗肠热病的比较。

Aztreonam compared to chloramphenicol in the treatment of enteric fevers.

作者信息

Girgis N I, Farid Z, Kilpatrick M E, Podgore J K, Sultan Y

机构信息

U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No. 3, Cairo, Egypt.

出版信息

Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1992;18(5):197-9.

PMID:1490435
Abstract

Fifty-seven patients, twenty-six males and thirty-one females, aged 6 to 50 years (mean 12.6 years) with proven Salmonella typhi or S. paratyphi A septicaemia, were treated in an open randomized parallel study with either aztreonam or chloramphenicol. Aztreonam was given intramuscularly at a level of 50 to 80 mg/kg body weight per dose every 8 h for 7 days to thirty patients. Chloramphenicol was given orally in a dose of 50 to 70 mg/kg body weight every 6 h for 12 days to twenty-seven patients. All patients responded rapidly to treatment, becoming afebrile and asymptomatic within 5.5 to 6.4 days. Only one patient on aztreonam relapsed following treatment, whereas three patients relapsed after chloramphenicol treatment. There were no serious side effects with either drug.

摘要

57例年龄在6至50岁(平均12.6岁),确诊为伤寒沙门菌或甲型副伤寒沙门菌败血症的患者,其中男性26例,女性31例,在一项开放性随机平行研究中接受了氨曲南或氯霉素治疗。30例患者接受氨曲南治疗,每8小时肌肉注射一次,剂量为50至80mg/kg体重,共7天。27例患者接受氯霉素治疗,口服剂量为每6小时50至70mg/kg体重,共12天。所有患者对治疗反应迅速,在5.5至6.4天内退热且无症状。接受氨曲南治疗的患者中只有1例在治疗后复发,而接受氯霉素治疗的有3例复发。两种药物均未出现严重副作用。

相似文献

1
Aztreonam compared to chloramphenicol in the treatment of enteric fevers.氨曲南与氯霉素治疗肠热病的比较。
Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1992;18(5):197-9.
2
Ceftriaxone versus chloramphenicol in the treatment of enteric fever.头孢曲松与氯霉素治疗伤寒的对比研究
Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1990;16(12):607-9.
3
A comparative evaluation of the treatment of typhoid fevers with co-trimoxazole and chloramphenicol in Egypt.
J Trop Med Hyg. 1975 Mar;78(3):50-3.
4
Cefixime in the treatment of enteric fever in children.头孢克肟治疗儿童伤寒
Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1993;19(1):47-9.
5
Open study on efficacy and safety of levofloxacin in treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever.
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2006 Jan;37(1):126-30.
6
A randomized comparison of oral chloramphenicol versus ofloxacin in the treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever in Laos.老挝口服氯霉素与氧氟沙星治疗单纯性伤寒热的随机对照研究
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2005 Jun;99(6):451-8. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2004.08.007.
7
Randomized comparison of aztreonam and chloramphenicol in treatment of typhoid fever.氨曲南与氯霉素治疗伤寒热的随机对照比较。
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994 Mar;38(3):558-62. doi: 10.1128/AAC.38.3.558.
8
Comparative efficacies of aztreonam and chloramphenicol in children with typhoid fever.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1990 Jan;9(1):44-8. doi: 10.1097/00006454-199001000-00010.
9
Randomized comparative study of fleroxacin and chloramphenicol in typhoid fever.氟罗沙星与氯霉素治疗伤寒的随机对照研究
Am J Med. 1993 Mar 22;94(3A):195S-200S.
10
Ofloxacin in the treatment of typhoid fever unresponsive to chloramphenicol.氧氟沙星治疗对氯霉素无反应的伤寒热。
Clin Ther. 1990 Jan-Feb;12(1):44-7.