期刊文献+

替考拉宁与万古霉素随机对照多中心临床研究 被引量:6

Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial On Teicoplanin Versus Vancomycin
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:评价替考拉宁治疗下呼吸道革兰阳性菌感染的疗效和安全性。方法:给药方案为试验药替考拉宁,第一日每次400mg,qd,此后每次200mg,qd;重度感染第一日每次400mg,q12h,此后每次400mg,qd。对照药万古霉素,每次0、5g,q8h。重度感染每次1.0g,q12h。均为静脉滴注。疗程7~14d。结果:试验药组和对照药组有效率分别为87.10%(54/62)及90.32%(56/62),痊愈率分别为74.19%(46/62)及61.29%(38/62),细菌清除率分别为94.74%(54/57)及88.52%(54/61),药物不良反应发生率分别为11.29%(7/62)及6.45%(4/62)。上述两组的各项结果经统计学处理,均无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:替考拉宁对革兰阳性菌抗菌活性强,临床疗效佳,药物不良反应轻微,对革兰阳性菌引起的中、重度感染安全有效。 OBJECTIVE: To Evaluate the efficacy and safety of teicoplanin. METHODS: The patients received teicoplanin intravenously once daily at 400mg in the first day, 200mg from the second day and the doses were double for the patients with severe infections, or vancomycin at 0.5g three times daily and 1.0g twice daily for the patients with severe infections. The treatment duration was 7-14 days. RESULTS: The effective rate and cure rate were 87.10% (54/62) and 74.19%(46/62)in teicoplanin group, while in vancomycin group were 90.32%(56/62)and 61.29%(38/62) respectively. The bacterial elimination rate was 94.74%(54/57) in teicoplanin group and 88.52%(54/61) in vancomycin group. Adverse reactions occurred in 11.29%(7/62) of patients in teicoplanin group and 6.45%(4/62) in vancomycin group. There were no statistically differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Teicoplanin is an effective and safe agent for treating moderate and severe gram positive bacterial infections.
出处 《中国临床药理学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2002年第4期243-246,共4页 The Chinese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
关键词 替考拉宁 万古霉素 下呼吸道感染 随机对照临床试验 疗效 安全性 不良反应 teicoplanin vancomycin lower respiratory tract infection randomized controlled clinical trail
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

  • 1[1]Lazzarini L, Tramarin A, Bragagnolo L, et al. Three-times weekly teicoplanin in the outpatieni iteatment of acute methicillinresistant staphylococcal osteomyelitis: a pilot study. J Chemother,2002; 14: 71~75.
  • 2[2]Boger DL. Vancomycin, teicoplanin, and ramoplanin: synthetic and mechanistic studies. Med Res Rev, 2001; 21: 356~381.
  • 3[3]Johnson AP, Uttley AH, Woodford N, et al. Resistance to vancomycin and teicoplanin: an emerging clinical problem. Clin Microbiol Rev, 1990; 3: 280~291.
  • 4[4]Wood MJ. Comparative safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Chemother, 2000; 12 (Suppl.5): 21~25.
  • 5[5]Morio A, Miyamoto H, Yamazaki A, et al. A case of primary lung cancer complicated with post-operative intractable pulmonary fistula. Kyobu Geka, 2000; 53:1144~1147.

同被引文献116

引证文献6

二级引证文献72

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部