• 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

头孢克肟与阿莫西林治疗呼吸道感染的对比性多中心研究。

Comparative, multicenter studies of cefixime and amoxicillin in the treatment of respiratory tract infections.

作者信息

Kiani R, Johnson D, Nelson B

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Illinois Hospital, Chicago 60612.

出版信息

Am J Med. 1988 Sep 16;85(3A):6-13. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(88)90457-3.

DOI:10.1016/0002-9343(88)90457-3
PMID:3048092
Abstract

A total of 560 patients were treated in two double-blind, randomized multicenter studies to compare the safety and efficacy of cefixime (400 mg administered once daily) and amoxicillin (250 or 500 mg administered three times daily) for the treatment of bacterial respiratory tract infections. Eighty percent of the 244 patients treated in the lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) study had acute bronchitis. Streptococcus pneumoniae (13 percent), Haemophilus influenzae (28 percent), and Escherichia coli (10 percent) were the pathogens most frequently isolated from sputum in these patients. Among evaluable patients with positive bacterial culture results at baseline, a favorable clinical response (cured or improved) was obtained in 100 percent of the cefixime-treated patients (22 of 22) and in 96 percent of the amoxicillin-treated patients (23 of 24). Bacteriologic eradication rates were 100 percent and 83 percent for cefixime and amoxicillin, respectively. In the upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) study, 316 patients with pharyngitis (80 percent) or tonsillitis (14 percent) were treated. Group A, beta-hemolytic Streptococcus (69 percent) and H. influenzae (8 percent) were the pathogens most frequently isolated from the throat culture specimens of these patients. Favorable clinical results were obtained in 99 percent of the evaluable cefixime-treated group (n = 73) and in 98 percent of the amoxicillin-treated group (n = 66). The bacteriologic eradication rates were 93 percent and 100 percent, respectively. The adverse experiences reported during both studies were similar in nature and frequency to those reported for other beta-lactam antibiotics with the exception of a higher incidence of altered bowel movement (diarrhea and stool changes) with both drugs. These episodes usually resolved without remedial medication when the treatment was withdrawn. No significant adverse laboratory findings were observed. Results of these trials demonstrate that cefixime at a dosage of 400 mg once daily is an effective and safe oral antibiotic for the treatment of acute respiratory tract infections.

摘要

在两项双盲、随机多中心研究中,共对560例患者进行了治疗,以比较头孢克肟(每日一次服用400毫克)和阿莫西林(每日三次服用250或500毫克)治疗细菌性呼吸道感染的安全性和疗效。在下呼吸道感染(LRTI)研究中接受治疗的244例患者中,80%患有急性支气管炎。肺炎链球菌(13%)、流感嗜血杆菌(28%)和大肠杆菌(10%)是这些患者痰液中最常分离出的病原体。在基线细菌培养结果呈阳性的可评估患者中,头孢克肟治疗组(22例中的22例)100%获得了良好的临床反应(治愈或改善),阿莫西林治疗组(24例中的23例)为96%。头孢克肟和阿莫西林的细菌清除率分别为100%和83%。在上呼吸道感染(URTI)研究中,对316例咽炎(80%)或扁桃体炎(14%)患者进行了治疗。A组β溶血性链球菌(69%)和流感嗜血杆菌(8%)是这些患者咽喉培养标本中最常分离出的病原体。可评估的头孢克肟治疗组(n = 73)中99%获得了良好的临床结果,阿莫西林治疗组(n = 66)中为98%。细菌清除率分别为93%和100%。两项研究中报告的不良事件在性质和频率上与其他β-内酰胺类抗生素报告的相似,但两种药物导致的排便改变(腹泻和大便变化)发生率较高。当停止治疗时,这些症状通常无需药物治疗即可缓解。未观察到明显的不良实验室检查结果。这些试验结果表明,每日一次服用400毫克的头孢克肟是治疗急性呼吸道感染的一种有效且安全的口服抗生素。

相似文献

1
Comparative, multicenter studies of cefixime and amoxicillin in the treatment of respiratory tract infections.头孢克肟与阿莫西林治疗呼吸道感染的对比性多中心研究。
Am J Med. 1988 Sep 16;85(3A):6-13. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(88)90457-3.
2
A double-blind, multicenter, comparative study of the safety and efficacy of cefixime versus amoxicillin in the treatment of acute urinary tract infections in adult patients.头孢克肟与阿莫西林治疗成年患者急性尿路感染安全性和有效性的双盲、多中心对照研究
Am J Med. 1988 Sep 16;85(3A):17-23. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(88)90459-7.
3
Efficacy and safety of clarithromycin compared to cefixime as outpatient treatment of lower respiratory tract infections.克拉霉素与头孢克肟作为门诊治疗下呼吸道感染的疗效及安全性比较。
Chest. 1993 Nov;104(5):1393-9. doi: 10.1378/chest.104.5.1393.
4
Cefixime versus amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in lower respiratory tract infections.头孢克肟与阿莫西林/克拉维酸治疗下呼吸道感染的对比
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1989 Jan;27(1):30-3.
5
[Controlled multicentric study comparing cefixime and amoxicillin in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections in adults].[比较头孢克肟和阿莫西林治疗成人下呼吸道感染的对照多中心研究]
Presse Med. 1989 Oct 11;18(32):1600-4.
6
Randomized, open label, multicenter trial of cefixime compared with amoxicillin for treatment of acute otitis media with effusion.头孢克肟与阿莫西林治疗急性分泌性中耳炎的随机、开放标签、多中心试验
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1987 Oct;6(10):997-1001. doi: 10.1097/00006454-198710000-00042.
7
[Clinical evaluation of cefixime in pediatric respiratory tract infections].
Jpn J Antibiot. 1991 Jan;44(1):35-47.
8
Cefixime in the treatment of patients with lower respiratory tract infections: results of US clinical trials.头孢克肟治疗下呼吸道感染患者:美国临床试验结果
Clin Ther. 1996 May-Jun;18(3):373-90; discussion 372. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(96)80019-1.
9
Cefixime. A review of its therapeutic efficacy in lower respiratory tract infections.头孢克肟。其在下呼吸道感染中治疗效果的综述。
Drugs. 1995 Jun;49(6):1007-22. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199549060-00010.
10
Bacteriologic and clinical efficacy of cefixime compared with amoxicillin in acute otitis media.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1987 Oct;6(10):989-91. doi: 10.1097/00006454-198710000-00040.

引用本文的文献

1
COMPARATIVE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF CEFIXIME AND CIPROFLOXACIN IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ADULTS WITH COMMUNITY-ACQUIRED PNEUMONIA IN IBADAN, NIGERIA.头孢克肟与环丙沙星治疗尼日利亚伊巴丹社区获得性肺炎成人患者的疗效及安全性比较
Ann Ib Postgrad Med. 2015 Dec;13(2):72-8.
2
Efficacy and Tolerability of 5- vs 10-Day Cefixime Therapy in Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis.头孢克肟 5 天与 10 天疗法治疗慢性支气管炎急性加重期的疗效和耐受性。
Clin Drug Investig. 1998;15(1):13-20. doi: 10.2165/00044011-199815010-00002.
3
Review of the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical use of cephalosporins.
头孢菌素类药物的药理学、药代动力学及临床应用综述。
Tex Heart Inst J. 1990;17(3):203-15.
4
Cost-effectiveness and value of an IV switch.静脉输液转换装置的成本效益和价值
Pharmacoeconomics. 1994;5(Suppl 2):20-6. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199400052-00005.
5
Adverse effects of newer cephalosporins. An update.新型头孢菌素的不良反应。最新进展。
Drug Saf. 1993 Aug;9(2):132-42. doi: 10.2165/00002018-199309020-00005.
6
A guide to the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections.下呼吸道感染治疗指南
Drugs. 1995 Jul;50(1):62-72. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199550010-00006.
7
Cefixime. A review of its antibacterial activity. Pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential.头孢克肟。其抗菌活性、药代动力学特性及治疗潜力综述。
Drugs. 1989 Oct;38(4):524-50. doi: 10.2165/00003495-198938040-00004.
8
[Clinical experiences with cefixime in the treatment of bacterial infections of the lower respiratory tract].
Infection. 1990;18 Suppl 3:S119-21. doi: 10.1007/BF01644628.
9
[Treatment results using cefixime for bacterial respiratory tract infections].
Infection. 1990;18 Suppl 3:S115-8. doi: 10.1007/BF01644627.
10
Comparison of the activity of cefixime and activities of other oral antibiotics against adult clinical isolates of Moraxella (Branhamella) catarrhalis containing BRO-1 and BRO-2 and Haemophilus influenzae.头孢克肟与其他口服抗生素对含BRO-1和BRO-2的成人卡他莫拉菌(布兰汉菌属)临床分离株及流感嗜血杆菌的活性比较。
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Jan;35(1):192-4. doi: 10.1128/AAC.35.1.192.