Rodriguez-Noriega E, Esparza-Ahumada S, Morfin-Otero R
Hospital Civil de Guadalajara, Centro Universitario Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
J Chemother. 1995 Jun;7 Suppl 2:155-60.
Two hundred and three patients with skin and skin structure infections were treated with isepamicin once daily or amikacin twice daily in an open, randomised, comparative multicentre trial. Patients were randomised to treatment with isepamicin or amikacin in a 2:1 ratio. Severe infections (63 patients) were treated with isepamicin 15 mg/kg once daily (n = 15) or amikacin 7.5 mg/kg twice daily (n - 18), less severe infections (140 patients) with isepamicin 8 mg/kg once daily (n = 93) or amikacin 7.5 mg/kg twice daily (n = 47). The overall clinical response rate at the end of treatment was excellent in all treatment groups (94-96% cured or improved) with no significant differences between isepamicin and amikacin in patients with either server or less severe infections. The most commonly isolated target pathogens were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis and Staphylococcus aureus. Overall, in patients who had a valid target pathogen isolated prior to treatment and who met other evaluability criteria, bacteriological eradication was achieved in over 90% of patients; amikacin patients with severe infections had a somewhat lower eradication rate (82%). Over all infections, 4/110 (4%) patients in the isepamicin group and 5/54 (9%) patients in the amikacin had organisms which persisted. Adverse events were reported in 12% of patients in the isepamicin group and 6% in the amikacin group. The most frequently reported adverse event in the isepamicin group as headache. Two patients (one in each treatment group), both of whom experienced skin rashes, were withdrawn. Potentially clinically significant changes in serum creatinine occurred in two patients, who received isepamicin and one who received amikacin (who was withdrawn from the study). Ototoxicity was rare, occurring in one patient treated with isepamicin.
在一项开放性、随机、对照多中心试验中,203例皮肤及皮肤结构感染患者分别接受异帕米星每日一次或阿米卡星每日两次治疗。患者按2:1的比例随机分为异帕米星组或阿米卡星组。重度感染(63例患者)接受异帕米星15mg/kg每日一次治疗(n = 15)或阿米卡星7.5mg/kg每日两次治疗(n = 18),轻度感染(140例患者)接受异帕米星8mg/kg每日一次治疗(n = 93)或阿米卡星7.5mg/kg每日两次治疗(n = 47)。治疗结束时,所有治疗组的总体临床有效率均极佳(94 - 96%治愈或好转),重度或轻度感染患者中,异帕米星组和阿米卡星组之间无显著差异。最常分离出的目标病原体为铜绿假单胞菌、大肠埃希菌、奇异变形杆菌和金黄色葡萄球菌。总体而言,在治疗前分离出有效目标病原体且符合其他可评估标准的患者中,超过90%的患者实现了细菌清除;重度感染的阿米卡星组患者清除率略低(82%)。在所有感染患者中,异帕米星组110例中有4例(4%)、阿米卡星组54例中有5例(9%)的病原体持续存在。异帕米星组12%的患者和阿米卡星组6%的患者报告了不良事件。异帕米星组最常报告的不良事件是头痛。两名患者(各治疗组1例)均出现皮疹,退出研究。两名接受异帕米星治疗的患者和一名接受阿米卡星治疗的患者(已退出研究)出现了可能具有临床意义的血清肌酐变化。耳毒性罕见,1例接受异帕米星治疗的患者出现耳毒性。