头孢呋辛酯、头孢氨苄和头孢氨苄酯治疗原发性皮肤或皮肤结构感染的临床比较。

Dermatologica Pub Date : 1991-01-01 DOI:10.1159/000247629
W M Gooch, L Kaminester, G W Cole, R Binder, M R Morman, J M Swinehart, M Wisniewski, H M Yilmaz, J J Collins
{"title":"头孢呋辛酯、头孢氨苄和头孢氨苄酯治疗原发性皮肤或皮肤结构感染的临床比较。","authors":"W M Gooch,&nbsp;L Kaminester,&nbsp;G W Cole,&nbsp;R Binder,&nbsp;M R Morman,&nbsp;J M Swinehart,&nbsp;M Wisniewski,&nbsp;H M Yilmaz,&nbsp;J J Collins","doi":"10.1159/000247629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study was designed to compare the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of three oral cephalosporins, cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil, in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate infections of the skin or skin structures. A total of 330 patients were enrolled at 10 centers and were randomly assigned to receive cefuroxime axetil 250 mg (n = 107), cephalexin 500 mg (n = 111) or cefadroxil 500 mg (n = 112), twice daily for 10 days. Patients were assessed for their clinical and bacteriological responses once during treatment (3-5 days) and twice after treatment (1-3 and 10-14 days). A total of 353 bacterial isolates were obtained: Staphylococcus aureus (41%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (33%) and Streptococcus pyogenes (5%). A satisfactory clinical outcome (cure or improvement) was achieved in 97% (89/92), 89% (80/90) and 94% (82/87) of the clinically evaluable patients treated with cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin or cefadroxil, respectively (p = 0.047, cefuroxime axetil vs. cephalexin). With respect to the eradication of the bacterial pathogens, a satisfactory outcome (cure or presumed cure) was obtained in 96% (69/72), 85% (60/71) and 93% (63/68) of bacteriologically evaluable patients treated with cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil, respectively (p = 0.026, cefuroxime axetil vs. cephalexin). All three study drugs were well tolerated, with adverse events affecting the gastrointestinal system most commonly reported. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in the incidence of drug-related adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":11117,"journal":{"name":"Dermatologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1991-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000247629","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical comparison of cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil in the treatment of patients with primary infections of the skin or skin structures.\",\"authors\":\"W M Gooch,&nbsp;L Kaminester,&nbsp;G W Cole,&nbsp;R Binder,&nbsp;M R Morman,&nbsp;J M Swinehart,&nbsp;M Wisniewski,&nbsp;H M Yilmaz,&nbsp;J J Collins\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000247629\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study was designed to compare the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of three oral cephalosporins, cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil, in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate infections of the skin or skin structures. A total of 330 patients were enrolled at 10 centers and were randomly assigned to receive cefuroxime axetil 250 mg (n = 107), cephalexin 500 mg (n = 111) or cefadroxil 500 mg (n = 112), twice daily for 10 days. Patients were assessed for their clinical and bacteriological responses once during treatment (3-5 days) and twice after treatment (1-3 and 10-14 days). A total of 353 bacterial isolates were obtained: Staphylococcus aureus (41%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (33%) and Streptococcus pyogenes (5%). A satisfactory clinical outcome (cure or improvement) was achieved in 97% (89/92), 89% (80/90) and 94% (82/87) of the clinically evaluable patients treated with cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin or cefadroxil, respectively (p = 0.047, cefuroxime axetil vs. cephalexin). With respect to the eradication of the bacterial pathogens, a satisfactory outcome (cure or presumed cure) was obtained in 96% (69/72), 85% (60/71) and 93% (63/68) of bacteriologically evaluable patients treated with cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil, respectively (p = 0.026, cefuroxime axetil vs. cephalexin). All three study drugs were well tolerated, with adverse events affecting the gastrointestinal system most commonly reported. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in the incidence of drug-related adverse events.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11117,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dermatologica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1991-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000247629\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dermatologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000247629\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dermatologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000247629","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

本研究旨在比较三种口服头孢菌素头孢呋辛酯、头孢氨苄和头孢氨苄酯治疗轻至中度皮肤或皮肤结构感染患者的临床和细菌学疗效。10个中心共纳入330名患者,随机分配接受头孢呋辛酯250 mg (n = 107)、头孢氨苄500 mg (n = 111)或头孢地呋辛500 mg (n = 112),每天两次,持续10天。在治疗期间(3-5天)和治疗后(1-3天和10-14天)分别对患者进行1次临床和细菌学反应评估。共分离出353株细菌,其中金黄色葡萄球菌(41%)、表皮葡萄球菌(33%)和化脓性链球菌(5%)。在临床可评估的患者中,分别有97%(89/92)、89%(80/90)和94%(82/87)的患者接受头孢呋辛酯、头孢氨苄和头孢氨苄治疗后获得满意的临床结果(治愈或改善)(p = 0.047,头孢呋辛酯vs头孢氨苄)。在细菌学上可评估的患者中,头孢呋辛酯、头孢氨苄和头孢氨苄分别有96%(69/72)、85%(60/71)和93%(63/68)获得满意的结果(治愈或推定治愈)(p = 0.026,头孢呋辛酯vs头孢氨苄)。所有三种研究药物耐受性良好,不良事件影响胃肠道系统是最常见的报道。两组药物相关不良事件发生率无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical comparison of cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil in the treatment of patients with primary infections of the skin or skin structures.

This study was designed to compare the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of three oral cephalosporins, cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil, in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate infections of the skin or skin structures. A total of 330 patients were enrolled at 10 centers and were randomly assigned to receive cefuroxime axetil 250 mg (n = 107), cephalexin 500 mg (n = 111) or cefadroxil 500 mg (n = 112), twice daily for 10 days. Patients were assessed for their clinical and bacteriological responses once during treatment (3-5 days) and twice after treatment (1-3 and 10-14 days). A total of 353 bacterial isolates were obtained: Staphylococcus aureus (41%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (33%) and Streptococcus pyogenes (5%). A satisfactory clinical outcome (cure or improvement) was achieved in 97% (89/92), 89% (80/90) and 94% (82/87) of the clinically evaluable patients treated with cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin or cefadroxil, respectively (p = 0.047, cefuroxime axetil vs. cephalexin). With respect to the eradication of the bacterial pathogens, a satisfactory outcome (cure or presumed cure) was obtained in 96% (69/72), 85% (60/71) and 93% (63/68) of bacteriologically evaluable patients treated with cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil, respectively (p = 0.026, cefuroxime axetil vs. cephalexin). All three study drugs were well tolerated, with adverse events affecting the gastrointestinal system most commonly reported. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in the incidence of drug-related adverse events.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信