Wettengel R, Vetter N, Waardenburg F A
Karl-Hansen-Klinik, Bad Lippspringe, Germany.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993 Jun;31(6):963-72. doi: 10.1093/jac/31.6.963.
Four hundred and eight outpatients with the clinical signs and symptoms of mild-to-moderate acute bronchitis of bacterial aetiology were enrolled in a multicentre, double-blind, randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of clarithromycin and cefaclor, both administered orally. Two hundred and seven patients received clarithromycin 250 mg bd and 201 patients received cefaclor 500 mg tds for a maximum of seven days. Clinical and bacteriological evaluations were performed before treatment was initiated, during the course of treatment, and within 72 h of completing therapy; all adverse events were recorded. Two hundred and three patients in the clarithromycin group and 195 in the cefaclor group were evaluable for clinical response and 129 and 124 patients in the clarithromycin and cefaclor groups, respectively, were evaluable for bacteriological response. The clinical response rates three to five days after starting treatment and at the post-treatment assessment were 97% (193/199) and 99.5% (202/203), respectively, for the clarithromycin group and 97.4% (187/192) and 97.9% (191/195), respectively, for the cefaclor group. The bacteriological cure rates were 94.6% (122/129) for the clarithromycin group and 90.3% (112/124) for the cefaclor group. None of the differences between the groups was statistically significant. Adverse events, which were generally mild and predominantly related to the gastrointestinal tract, were reported by 5.8% of clarithromycin-treated patients and 10.4% of cefaclor-treated patients. Adverse reactions caused one patient in the clarithromycin group and three in the cefaclor group to discontinue treatment prematurely. The results of this study indicate that clarithromycin and cefaclor are comparable with respect to efficacy and safety when used as treatment for patients with mild-to-moderate acute bacterial bronchitis.
408名有轻至中度细菌性急性支气管炎临床症状和体征的门诊患者参加了一项多中心、双盲、随机临床试验,比较口服克拉霉素和头孢克洛的疗效及安全性。207名患者接受克拉霉素250mg,每日2次,201名患者接受头孢克洛500mg,每日3次,最长治疗7天。在开始治疗前、治疗期间及完成治疗后72小时内进行临床和细菌学评估;记录所有不良事件。克拉霉素组203名患者和头孢克洛组195名患者可进行临床反应评估,克拉霉素组和头孢克洛组分别有129名和124名患者可进行细菌学反应评估。克拉霉素组开始治疗后3至5天及治疗后评估时的临床反应率分别为97%(193/199)和99.5%(202/203),头孢克洛组分别为97.4%(187/192)和97.9%(191/195)。细菌学治愈率克拉霉素组为94.6%(122/129),头孢克洛组为90.3%(112/124)。组间差异均无统计学意义。接受克拉霉素治疗的患者中有5.8%、接受头孢克洛治疗的患者中有10.4%报告了不良事件,一般为轻度,主要与胃肠道有关。克拉霉素组有1名患者、头孢克洛组有3名患者因不良反应提前终止治疗。本研究结果表明,克拉霉素和头孢克洛用于治疗轻至中度急性细菌性支气管炎患者时,在疗效和安全性方面具有可比性。