Donowitz G R, Brandon M L, Salisbury J P, Harman C P, Tipping D M, Urick A E, Talbot G H
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA.
Clin Ther. 1997 Sep-Oct;19(5):936-53. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(97)80047-1.
Community-acquired pneumonia remains an important infectious disease problem, with more than 4 million cases occurring in the United States annually. Although Streptococcus pneumoniae remains the most commonly identified organism, a variety of bacterial and nonbacterial pathogens may be involved. Hospitalization is unnecessary in most cases, and oral antibiotic therapy is common. In the majority of cases, the etiology of pneumonia is unknown at the time of presentation, necessitating the use of empiric therapy. Quinolones have not been utilized in this setting in the past because of their inconsistent coverage of S pneumoniae. Sparfloxacin (RP 64206) is a broad-spectrum fluoroquinolone with excellent activity in vitro against the majority of bacteria involved in community-acquired pneumonia, including pneumococcus. We therefore studied the efficacy and safety of sparfloxacin compared with the second-generation cephalosporin cefaclor as empiric therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia in a double-masked, double-dummy, multicenter trial. Three hundred thirty patients aged 18 years or older with community-acquired pneumonia suspected of being bacterial in etiology were enrolled at 74 centers in the United States from June 1, 1992, to March 4, 1995. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were randomized to receive 10 days of either sparfloxacin 400 mg orally once followed by sparfloxacin 200 mg orally daily (n = 168), or cefaclor 500 mg orally every 8 hours (n = 162). There were no significant differences between groups with regard to baseline characteristics. Patients were followed up serially at 4 +/- 1 days, 20 +/- 3 days, and 38 +/- 7 days after the beginning of therapy. Patients were evaluated for clinical response, clinical recurrence of infection, and eradication of baseline pathogens. The primary efficacy variable was the clinical response (cured or improved) in the subgroup of patients meeting the definition of clinically assessable. Responses were also evaluated in the intent-to-treat population. In the intent-to-treat population, 35.7% of patients receiving sparfloxacin were clinically cured, compared with 32.1% of patients receiving cefaclor. Clinical successes (patients clinically cured plus improved) were also comparable (72.6% of patients in the sparfloxacin group and 71.0% of patients in the cefaclor group). Similar clinical success rates were noted using only the clinically assessable population (primary efficacy variable). Forty-four percent of patients receiving sparfloxacin and 39.1% of patients receiving cefaclor were clinically cured. In the sparfloxacin group, 86.6% of patients were clinical successes, compared with 84.4% of patients in the cefaclor group. Microbiologic cures were comparable in both groups. There was no difference in the incidence of recurrence of infection or superinfection. Adverse events thought to be due to study drug occurred equally in both groups (14.3% in the sparfloxacin group vs 14.8% in the cefaclor group). Results show that sparfloxacin is a safe and effective empiric therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia and is comparable to cefaclor.
社区获得性肺炎仍然是一个重要的传染病问题,在美国每年有超过400万例病例。虽然肺炎链球菌仍然是最常鉴定出的病原体,但多种细菌和非细菌性病原体都可能与之相关。大多数情况下无需住院,口服抗生素治疗很常见。在大多数病例中,肺炎的病因在就诊时并不明确,因此需要采用经验性治疗。过去喹诺酮类药物未用于此情况,因为它们对肺炎链球菌的覆盖范围不一致。司帕沙星(RP 64206)是一种广谱氟喹诺酮类药物,在体外对大多数与社区获得性肺炎相关的细菌,包括肺炎球菌,具有出色的活性。因此,我们在一项双盲、双模拟、多中心试验中研究了司帕沙星与第二代头孢菌素头孢克洛作为社区获得性肺炎患者经验性治疗药物的疗效和安全性。1992年6月1日至1995年3月4日期间,在美国74个中心招募了330名年龄在18岁及以上、疑似病因是细菌性的社区获得性肺炎患者。符合纳入标准的患者被随机分为两组,一组接受司帕沙星治疗,口服400 mg,每日1次,随后每日口服200 mg,共10天(n = 168);另一组接受头孢克洛治疗,每8小时口服500 mg(n = 162)。两组患者的基线特征无显著差异。治疗开始后,分别在4±1天、20±3天和38±7天对患者进行连续随访。对患者进行临床反应、感染临床复发情况以及基线病原体清除情况的评估。主要疗效变量是符合临床可评估定义的患者亚组中的临床反应(治愈或改善)。在意向性治疗人群中也对反应进行了评估。在意向性治疗人群中,接受司帕沙星治疗的患者有35.7%临床治愈,接受头孢克洛治疗的患者为32.1%。临床成功(临床治愈加改善的患者)情况也相当(司帕沙星组为72.6%,头孢克洛组为71.0%)。仅使用临床可评估人群(主要疗效变量)时,也观察到了相似的临床成功率。接受司帕沙星治疗的患者有44%临床治愈,接受头孢克洛治疗的患者为39.1%。在司帕沙星组中,86.6%的患者临床成功,头孢克洛组为84.4%。两组的微生物学治愈率相当。感染复发或二重感染的发生率没有差异。认为是由研究药物引起的不良事件在两组中发生率相同(司帕沙星组为14.3%,头孢克洛组为14.8%)。结果表明,司帕沙星是社区获得性肺炎患者安全有效的经验性治疗药物,与头孢克洛相当。