首页> 外文OA文献 >Treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalized patients: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem-cilastatin. The Severe Pneumonia Study Group
【2h】

Treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalized patients: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem-cilastatin. The Severe Pneumonia Study Group

机译:住院患者治疗重症肺炎:多中心,随机,双盲试验结果比较静脉注射环丙沙星与亚胺培南 - 西司他丁。重症肺炎研究组

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Intravenously administered ciprofloxacin was compared with imipenem for the treatment of severe pneumonia. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, which included an intent-to-treat analysis, a total of 405 patients with severe pneumonia were enrolled. The mean APACHE II score was 17.6, 79% of the patients required mechanical ventilation, and 78% had nosocomial pneumonia. A subgroup of 205 patients (98 ciprofloxacin-treated patients and 107 imipenem-treated patients) were evaluable for the major efficacy endpoints. Patients were randomized to receive intravenous treatment with either ciprofloxacin (400 mg every 8 h) or imipenem (1,000 mg every 8 h), and doses were adjusted for renal function. The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were bacteriological and clinical responses at 3 to 7 days after completion of therapy. Ciprofloxacin-treated patients had a higher bacteriological eradication rate than did imipenem-treated patients (69 versus 59%; 95% confidence interval of -0.6%, 26.2%; P = 0.069) and also a significantly higher clinical response rate (69 versus 56%; 95% confidence interval of 3.5%, 28.5%; P = 0.021). The greatest difference between ciprofloxacin and imipenem was in eradication of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae (93 versus 65%; P = 0.009). Stepwise logistic regression analysis demonstrated the following factors to be associated with bacteriological eradication: absence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P \u3c 0.01), higher weight (P \u3c 0.01), a low APACHE II score (P = 0.03), and treatment with ciprofloxacin (P = 0.04). When P. aeruginosa was recovered from initial respiratory tract cultures, failure to achieve bacteriological eradication and development of resistance during therapy were common in both treatment groups (67 and 33% for ciprofloxacin and 59 and 53% for imipenem, respectively). Seizures were observed more frequently with imipenem than with ciprofloxacin (6 versus 1%; P = 0.028). These results demonstrate that in patients with severe pneumonia, monotherapy with ciprofloxacin is at least equivalent to monotherapy with imipenem in terms of bacteriological eradication and clinical response. For both treatment groups, the presence of P. aeruginosa had a negative impact on treatment success. Seizures were more common with imipenem than with ciprofloxacin. Monotherapy for severe pneumonia is a safe and effective initial strategy but may need to be modified if P. aeruginosa is suspected or recovered from patients.
机译:比较静脉注射环丙沙星和亚胺培南治疗严重肺炎的情况。在这项前瞻性,随机,双盲,多中心试验中,包括意向性治疗分析,共纳入405例重症肺炎患者。 APACHE II平均得分为17.6,有79%的患者需要机械通气,而78%的患者患有医院内肺炎。 205位患者的亚组(98位环丙沙星治疗的患者和107位亚胺培南治疗的患者)可评估主要疗效终点。患者被随机分配接受环丙沙星(每8小时400毫克)或亚胺培南(每8小时1,000毫克)的静脉内治疗,并根据肾功能调整剂量。主要和次要疗效终点是治疗完成后3至7天的细菌学和临床反应。环丙沙星治疗的患者比亚胺培南治疗的患者具有更高的细菌根除率(69比59%; 95%置信区间为-0.6%,26.2%; P = 0.069),并且临床应答率也明显更高(69比56 %; 95%的置信区间为3.5%,28.5%; P = 0.021)。环丙沙星和亚胺培南之间的最大差异在于根除肠杆菌科成员的比例(93比65%; P = 0.009)。逐步逻辑回归分析表明,以下因素与细菌的根除有关:缺少铜绿假单胞菌(P≥0.01),体重较高(P≥0.01),APACHE II评分较低(P = 0.03)和环丙沙星治疗(P = 0.04)。当从最初的呼吸道培养物中恢复出铜绿假单胞菌时,在两个治疗组中都未能达到根除细菌的作用和在治疗过程中产生耐药性(环丙沙星分别为67%和33%,亚胺培南分别为59%和53%)。亚胺培南比环丙沙星更常观察到癫痫发作(6比1%; P = 0.028)。这些结果表明,在严重肺炎患者中,就细菌学根除和临床反应而言,环丙沙星单一疗法至少等同于亚胺培南单一疗法。对于两个治疗组,铜绿假单胞菌的存在对治疗成功都有负面影响。亚胺培南比环丙沙星更易发作。重症肺炎的单药治疗是一种安全有效的初始策略,但是如果怀疑或从患者身上恢复了铜绿假单胞菌,可能需要对其进行修改。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号