Alsowaida Yazed Saleh, Alowais Shuroug A, Aldugiem Rema A, Albahlal Hussah N, Saleh Khalid Bin, Alshoumr Bader, Alshammari Alia, Alshurtan Kareemah, Almangour Thamer A
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Hail, Ha'il 55473, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Pharmacy of College, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh 11461, Saudi Arabia.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2025 Mar 5;14(3):265. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14030265.
Brucellosis is a major zoonotic infection that warrants treatment with antibiotic therapy. Current treatment recommendations include using either dual or triple therapy with antibiotics active against brucella species. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dual and triple antibiotic therapy for treating brucellosis. This is a retrospective cohort study for patients with confirmed Brucellosis infection from 2015 to 2024. The primary outcome was the achievement of a favorable response. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure, 90-day mortality, relapse of brucella infection, hospital re-admission, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Baseline characteristics were reported as means with standard deviations. All the statistical tests are shown as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 966 patients were screened and 287 met the inclusion criteria: 164 patients in the dual therapy group and 123 patients in the triple therapy group. Achievement of a favorable response was not statistically different between the dual therapy and triple therapy groups; 87.3% vs. 90.5%, OR 1.2 (0.48-3.02, = 0.42). No patient died in either treatment group. Treatment failure, mean duration of hospitalization, brucella relapse, hospital re-admission, and the mean time to defervescence were not statistically different between dual and triple therapy groups. Adverse drug reactions were numerically higher in the triple therapy group. Dual therapy was equally effective for the treatment of patients with brucellosis compared to the triple therapy regimens. Although not statistically significant, there more ADRs in the triple therapy group compared to those receiving dual therapy. Thus, dual antibiotic therapy is efficacious, less costly, and associated with fewer ADRs compared to triple antibiotic therapy.
布鲁氏菌病是一种主要的人畜共患感染病,需要进行抗生素治疗。目前的治疗建议包括使用对布鲁氏菌属有效的抗生素进行双联或三联疗法。本研究旨在评估双联和三联抗生素疗法治疗布鲁氏菌病的有效性和安全性。这是一项对2015年至2024年确诊为布鲁氏菌病感染患者的回顾性队列研究。主要结局是获得良好反应。次要结局是治疗失败、90天死亡率、布鲁氏菌感染复发、再次入院以及药物不良反应(ADR)。基线特征以均值和标准差报告。所有统计检验均以比值比(OR)及95%置信区间(CI)表示。总共筛选了966例患者,287例符合纳入标准:双联治疗组164例患者,三联治疗组123例患者。双联治疗组和三联治疗组在获得良好反应方面无统计学差异;分别为87.3%和90.5%,OR为1.2(0.48 - 3.02,P = 0.42)。两个治疗组均无患者死亡。双联和三联治疗组在治疗失败、平均住院时间、布鲁氏菌复发、再次入院以及退热平均时间方面无统计学差异。三联治疗组的药物不良反应在数量上更多。与三联治疗方案相比,双联疗法治疗布鲁氏菌病患者同样有效。虽然无统计学意义,但三联治疗组的ADR比接受双联治疗的患者更多。因此,与三联抗生素疗法相比,双联抗生素疗法有效、成本更低且ADR更少。