Suppr超能文献

每日一次头孢布烯与每日两次克拉霉素治疗慢性支气管炎急性加重的随机对照研究

Randomized comparison of once-daily ceftibuten and twice-daily clarithromycin in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.

作者信息

Ziering W, McElvaine P

机构信息

Central California Research Institute, Fresno 93726, USA.

出版信息

Infection. 1998 Jan-Feb;26(1):68-75. doi: 10.1007/BF02768764.

Abstract

In an evaluator-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study, the efficacy and tolerability of ceftibuten 400 mg capsules once daily were compared with clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for 7-14 days in the treatment of 309 patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB). Clinical (n = 262) and microbiological (n = 71) assessments were conducted before treatment, during days 4-6 of treatment, and at 0-6 and 7-21 days after treatment. Clinical efficacy success rates (cure/improvement) at the end of treatment (0-6 days) were 91.0% for ceftibuten and 93.0% for clarithromycin. In the intent-to-treat population, the overall clinical assessment showed a success rate of 77.6% (121/156) in the ceftibuten group and 78.4% (120/153) in the clarithromycin group (95% confidence interval, -10.8 to +9.0%). One patient in each of the ceftibuten and clarithromycin groups had a microbiological relapse and became a treatment failure. The overall success rate was 84.3% for ceftibuten and 86.7% for clarithromycin (C.I. -11.7%, +6.9). Overall eradication of the target pathogens (Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Streptococcus pneumoniae) was 84.8% for ceftibuten and 89.5% for clarithromycin. Eradication rates for ceftibuten at 0-6 days post treatment were 95.2% (H. influenzae), 87.5% (M. catarrhalis), and 100% (S. pneumoniae), compared with 85.7%, 100% and 100%, respectively, for clarithromycin. Significantly fewer patients in the ceftibuten group experienced treatment-related adverse events than in the clarithromycin group (5.3 vs 21.9%; p < 0.001). This difference was due to a large number of patients in the clarithromycin group reporting taste perversion (12.6%) or gastrointestinal adverse events (9.9%). Given its tolerability and efficacy profiles, and the advantage of once-daily administration, ceftibuten provides a rational alternative for the treatment of AECB.

摘要

在一项评估者盲法、平行组、多中心研究中,将每日一次服用400毫克头孢布烯胶囊的疗效和耐受性与每日两次服用500毫克克拉霉素7 - 14天的疗效和耐受性进行比较,以治疗309例慢性支气管炎急性加重(AECB)患者。在治疗前、治疗第4 - 6天以及治疗后0 - 6天和7 - 21天进行了临床(n = 262)和微生物学(n = 71)评估。治疗结束时(0 - 6天),头孢布烯的临床疗效成功率(治愈/改善)为91.0%,克拉霉素为93.0%。在意向性治疗人群中,总体临床评估显示头孢布烯组成功率为77.6%(121/156),克拉霉素组为78.4%(120/153)(95%置信区间,-10.8至+9.0%)。头孢布烯组和克拉霉素组各有1例患者发生微生物学复发并成为治疗失败病例。头孢布烯的总体成功率为84.3%,克拉霉素为86.7%(置信区间-11.7%,+6.9)。目标病原体(流感嗜血杆菌、卡他莫拉菌和肺炎链球菌)的总体根除率,头孢布烯为84.8%,克拉霉素为89.5%。治疗后0 - 6天头孢布烯对流感嗜血杆菌、卡他莫拉菌和肺炎链球菌的根除率分别为95.2%、87.5%和100%,而克拉霉素分别为85.7%、100%和100%。头孢布烯组发生治疗相关不良事件的患者明显少于克拉霉素组(5.3%对21.9%;p < 0.001)。这种差异是由于克拉霉素组有大量患者报告味觉异常(12.6%)或胃肠道不良事件(9.9%)。鉴于其耐受性和疗效特征以及每日一次给药的优势,头孢布烯为AECB的治疗提供了一种合理的替代方案。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验