Suppr超能文献

异帕米星与阿米卡星治疗医院获得性肺炎和败血症的疗效及安全性评估。

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of isepamicin compared with amikacin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia and septicaemia.

作者信息

Beaucaire G

机构信息

Service de Réanimation Médicale et Maladies Infectieuses, Hôpital Guy Chatiliez, Tourcoing, France.

出版信息

J Chemother. 1995 Jun;7 Suppl 2:165-73.

PMID:8622107
Abstract

Isepamicin is a new aminoglycoside antibiotic which possesses greater stability to aminoglycoside-inactivating enzymes compared with other available aminoglycosides. In this prospective, randomised, open trial, the safety and efficacy of intravenous administration of isepamicin was compared with that of intravenous amikacin in seriously ill adults with nosocomial pneumonia or septicaemia. Each study aminoglycoside was administered concurrently with ceftazidime or imipenem. Patients were randomised to receive isepamicin 15 mg/kg once daily, isepamicin 7.5 mg/kg twice daily or amikacin 7.5 mg/kg twice daily. For patients with nosocomial pneumonia, the proportions of patients in the intent-to-treat population (n = 130) who were clinically cured at the end of treatment were similar in each treatment group: 18/44 (41%) isepamicin once daily; 19/45 (42%) isepamicin twice daily; and 17/41 (42%) amikacin. Corresponding results for the efficacy population (n = 58) were: 12/20 (60%) isepamicin once daily; 14/21 (67%) isepamicin twice daily; 9/17 (53%) amikacin. In patients with septicaemia, clinical cure was achieved in 8/10 (80%) patients treated with isepamicin once daily, compared with 8/13 (62%) patients who received isepamicin twice daily, and 7/12 (58%) patients treated with amikacin. For both diagnoses, there were no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups in clinical cure rate. The most commonly isolated target pathogen was Pseudomonas aeruginosa. For both nosocomial pneumonia and septicaemia, the proportion of patients in the intent-to-treat population whose pretreatment valid target pathogens were eliminated was similar in each treatment group. In total, 51 patients (30%) died during study, mostly due to disease progression or complications, or concurrent illness. All three treatment regimens were well tolerated. The proportion of patients experiencing at least one adverse event was 11%, 25% and 9% for isepamicin once daily, isepamicin twice daily and amikacin, respectively. The incidence of ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity was relatively low in both treatment groups.

摘要

异帕米星是一种新型氨基糖苷类抗生素,与其他现有的氨基糖苷类抗生素相比,它对氨基糖苷类灭活酶具有更高的稳定性。在这项前瞻性、随机、开放试验中,对重症医院获得性肺炎或败血症成年患者静脉注射异帕米星与静脉注射阿米卡星的安全性和有效性进行了比较。每种研究用氨基糖苷类抗生素均与头孢他啶或亚胺培南同时给药。患者被随机分为接受每日一次15mg/kg异帕米星、每日两次7.5mg/kg异帕米星或每日两次7.5mg/kg阿米卡星治疗。对于医院获得性肺炎患者,在治疗结束时临床治愈的意向性治疗人群(n = 130)中,各治疗组患者比例相似:每日一次异帕米星组为18/44(41%);每日两次异帕米星组为19/45(42%);阿米卡星组为17/41(42%)。疗效人群(n = 58)的相应结果为:每日一次异帕米星组为12/20(60%);每日两次异帕米星组为14/21(67%);阿米卡星组为9/17(53%)。在败血症患者中,每日一次接受异帕米星治疗的患者中有8/10(80%)实现了临床治愈,相比之下,每日两次接受异帕米星治疗的患者为8/13(62%),接受阿米卡星治疗的患者为7/12(58%)。对于这两种诊断,各治疗组之间的临床治愈率无统计学显著差异。最常分离出的目标病原体是铜绿假单胞菌。对于医院获得性肺炎和败血症,各治疗组中意向性治疗人群中治疗前有效目标病原体被清除的患者比例相似。在研究期间共有51名患者(30%)死亡,主要原因是疾病进展或并发症,或合并症。所有三种治疗方案耐受性良好。每日一次异帕米星组、每日两次异帕米星组和阿米卡星组经历至少一次不良事件的患者比例分别为11%、25%和9%。两个治疗组的耳毒性和肾毒性发生率相对较低。

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