Suppr超能文献

氯霉素、氨苄青霉素和复方新诺明治疗伤寒的疗效比较

Comparative efficacy of chloramphenicol, ampicillin, and co-trimoxazole in the treatment of typhoid fever.

作者信息

Snyder M J, Gonzalez O, Palomino C, Music S I, Hornick R B, Perroni J, Woodward W E, Gonzalez C, DuPont H L, Woodward T E

出版信息

Lancet. 1976 Nov 27;2(7996):1155-7. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(76)91678-0.

Abstract

Two clinical trials were conducted to compare the efficacy of 3 antimicrobial agents often recommended for the treatment of typhoid fever. Chloramphenicol was more effective than parenteral ampicillin or oral co-trimoxazole (trimethaprim/sulphamethoxazole) in reducing the duration of fever. Oral chloramphenicol was more effective than parenteral chloramphenicol probably because oral doses resulted in higher blood concentrations of the drug. However, parenteral chloramphenicol was given during the initial period of acute illness, without loss of efficacy.

摘要

进行了两项临床试验,以比较3种常用于治疗伤寒热的抗菌药物的疗效。在缩短发热持续时间方面,氯霉素比注射用氨苄青霉素或口服复方新诺明(甲氧苄啶/磺胺甲恶唑)更有效。口服氯霉素比注射用氯霉素更有效,这可能是因为口服剂量使药物在血液中的浓度更高。然而,在急性疾病初期给予注射用氯霉素,并未降低疗效。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验