摘要
目的探索口服头孢地尼5 d与口服阿莫西林克拉维酸钾10 d治疗急性中耳炎的疗效,并比较此两种方案的安全性。方法采用多中心、随机、对照的方法进行临床观察,头孢地尼组按头孢地尼100 mg/次,3次/d,饭前1 h或饭后2 h服用,连续使用5 d;阿莫西林克拉维酸钾组按阿莫西林克拉维酸钾250/125 mg/次,3次/d,连续使用10 d。用药前后观察症状、体征,进行耳镜检查、白细胞计数和分类以及听力检测等,评价疗效和安全性。通过对比头孢地尼和阿莫西林克拉维酸钾的治愈率、两组患者用药后症状特征改善情况和不良反应的发生率来判定两者治疗急性中耳炎的疗效。结果头孢地尼组108例患者中显效以上共105例(97.22%),阿莫西林克拉维酸钾组112例患者中显效以上共102例(91.07%),两者比较差异有显著性(χ2=4.013,P<0.05),两组患者治疗结束后临床表现均显著缓解;不良反应表现为丘疹样皮疹、荨麻疹、腹泻,共4例,每组2例,差异无显著性。结论口服头孢地尼5 d治疗AOM的疗效优于口服阿莫西林克拉维酸钾10 d的疗效,两者安全性相当,是治疗AOM时一个很好的选择。
Objiective To compare the efficacy and safety of 5-day oral cefdinir treatment with lO-day oral amoxi- cillin/clavulanate treatment for acute otitis media. Methods Patients were randomly assigned in a single（investigator）- blind fashion to receive either cefdinir 300mg/d given divided three times daily for 5 days, or amoxicillin/clavulanate 750/375 mg/d divided three times daily for 10 days. Clinical signs and symptomes of all patients were recorded befor and after treatment,otoscopy,peripheral blood WBC count,hearing test （pure tone test）and tympanography were performed. Results In the cefdinir group, 105/108 cases were cured or improved（97.22%）,while in the amoxicillin/alavulanate group 102/112 cases were cured or improved （91.07%）（P 〈 0.05）.Cefdinir was significantly better than amoxi- cillin/alavulanate in the treatment. Totally 4 cases had side effects such as papular skin rash, skin pigmentation and diarrhea, two cases in the cefdinir group and other two cases in the amoxicillin/a｜avulanate group. There was no significant difference between the two groups of in side effects. Conclusion Five-day oral cefdinir treatment was significantly better than 10-day oral amoxicillin/alavulanate treatment for acute otitis media,and it seems to be a better choice.
出处
《中国现代医生》
2013年第8期40-42,共3页
China Modern Doctor
基金
广东省第三批科技计划项目(粤科规划字[2012]145号)
