Amsden G W
Clinical Drug Research Center, St. Vincent Hospital, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
Clin Ther. 1996 Jan-Feb;18(1):56-72; discussion 55. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(96)80179-2.
Erythromycin, clarithromycin, and azithromycin are clinically effective for the treatment of common respiratory and skin/skin-structure infections. Erythromycin and azithromycin are also effective for treatment of nongonococcal urethritis and cervicitis due to Chlamydia trachomatis. Compared with erythromycin, clarithromycin and azithromycin offer improved tolerability. Clarithromycin, however, is more similar to erythromycin in pharmacokinetic measures such as half-life, tissue distribution, and drug interactions. Misunderstandings about differences among the macrolides (erythromycin and clarithromycin) and the azalide (azithromycin) in terms of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, spectrum of activity, safety, and cost are common. The uptake and release of these compounds by white blood cells and fibroblasts account for differences in tissue half-life, volume of distribution, intracellular:extracellular ratio, and in vivo potency. Although microbiologic studies reveal that gram-positive pathogens are equally susceptible to these agents, significantly more isolates of Haemophilus influenzae are susceptible to azithromycin than to erythromycin or clarithromycin. Concentrations achieved at the infection site and duration above the minimum inhibitory concentration are as important as in vitro activity in determining in vivo activity against bacterial pathogens. Analysis of safety data indicates differences among these agents in drug interactions and use in pregnancy. Analysis of safety data reveals pharmacokinetic drug interactions for erythromycin and clarithromycin with theophylline, terfenadine, and carbamazepine that are not found with azithromycin. Both erythromycin and azithromycin are pregnancy category B drugs; clarithromycin is a category C drug. The numerous differences in pharmacokinetics, microbiology, safety, and costs among erythromycin, clarithromycin, and azithromycin can be used in the judicious selection of treatment for indicated infections.
红霉素、克拉霉素和阿奇霉素对常见呼吸道及皮肤/皮肤结构感染的治疗具有临床疗效。红霉素和阿奇霉素对沙眼衣原体所致非淋菌性尿道炎和宫颈炎也有效。与红霉素相比,克拉霉素和阿奇霉素的耐受性更佳。然而,克拉霉素在诸如半衰期、组织分布和药物相互作用等药代动力学指标方面与红霉素更为相似。关于大环内酯类药物(红霉素和克拉霉素)与氮杂内酯类药物(阿奇霉素)在药代动力学和药效学、活性谱、安全性及成本方面的差异,存在诸多误解。这些化合物在白细胞和成纤维细胞中的摄取与释放导致了组织半衰期、分布容积、细胞内:细胞外比例及体内效力的差异。尽管微生物学研究表明革兰氏阳性病原体对这些药物同样敏感,但流感嗜血杆菌的分离株对阿奇霉素的敏感性明显高于红霉素或克拉霉素。在感染部位达到的浓度以及高于最低抑菌浓度的持续时间,在决定对细菌病原体的体内活性方面与体外活性同样重要。安全性数据分析表明这些药物在药物相互作用及孕期使用方面存在差异。安全性数据分析显示红霉素和克拉霉素与茶碱、特非那定和卡马西平存在药代动力学药物相互作用,而阿奇霉素则未出现此类情况。红霉素和阿奇霉素均为B类妊娠用药;克拉霉素为C类妊娠用药。红霉素、克拉霉素和阿奇霉素在药代动力学、微生物学、安全性及成本方面存在的诸多差异,可用于明智地选择针对特定感染的治疗药物。