联合阿莫昔拉、头孢多肟和左氧氟沙星治疗急性无并发症细菌性扁桃体炎的比较疗效和安全性:一项前瞻性、开放标签、平行组研究

IF 1.1 Q4 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Suja Xaviar, K Girish, B Jagannath, Saibal Das, Probin Joseph
{"title":"联合阿莫昔拉、头孢多肟和左氧氟沙星治疗急性无并发症细菌性扁桃体炎的比较疗效和安全性:一项前瞻性、开放标签、平行组研究","authors":"Suja Xaviar, K Girish, B Jagannath, Saibal Das, Probin Joseph","doi":"10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_693_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No clinical trials have compared the efficacy and safety of beta-lactam antibiotics and fluoroquinolones in acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of co-amoxiclav (amoxicillin/clavulanic acid), cefpodoxime proxetil, and levofloxacin monotherapy in patients with acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective, open-label, parallel-group study where 90 patients with acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis were equally divided into three groups to receive either tablet co-amoxiclav 625 mg thrice daily, tablet cefpodoxime proxetil 200 mg twice daily, or tablet levofloxacin 500 mg once daily for five days. The efficacy was assessed by subjective clinical improvement and objective bacteriological cure at the end of treatment. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events during the study period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Co-amoxiclav, cefpodoxime proxetil, and levofloxacin showed comparable clinical responses on days three and seven; however, on day five, levofloxacin showed a significantly reduced cure rate, but a higher improvement rate, than co-amoxiclav and cefpodoxime proxetil. Bacteriologically, the responses were similar in all three groups at week 1. All drugs were well tolerated with a few self-limiting adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Co-amoxiclav, cefpodoxime proxetil, and levofloxacin showed a comparable clinical and bacteriological cure in acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis and showed a good safety profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":15856,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care","volume":"13 12","pages":"5570-5574"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11709012/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative efficacy and safety of co-amoxiclav, cefpodoxime proxetil, and levofloxacin in patients with acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis: A prospective, open-label, parallel group study.\",\"authors\":\"Suja Xaviar, K Girish, B Jagannath, Saibal Das, Probin Joseph\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_693_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No clinical trials have compared the efficacy and safety of beta-lactam antibiotics and fluoroquinolones in acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of co-amoxiclav (amoxicillin/clavulanic acid), cefpodoxime proxetil, and levofloxacin monotherapy in patients with acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective, open-label, parallel-group study where 90 patients with acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis were equally divided into three groups to receive either tablet co-amoxiclav 625 mg thrice daily, tablet cefpodoxime proxetil 200 mg twice daily, or tablet levofloxacin 500 mg once daily for five days. The efficacy was assessed by subjective clinical improvement and objective bacteriological cure at the end of treatment. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events during the study period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Co-amoxiclav, cefpodoxime proxetil, and levofloxacin showed comparable clinical responses on days three and seven; however, on day five, levofloxacin showed a significantly reduced cure rate, but a higher improvement rate, than co-amoxiclav and cefpodoxime proxetil. Bacteriologically, the responses were similar in all three groups at week 1. All drugs were well tolerated with a few self-limiting adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Co-amoxiclav, cefpodoxime proxetil, and levofloxacin showed a comparable clinical and bacteriological cure in acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis and showed a good safety profile.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15856,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care\",\"volume\":\"13 12\",\"pages\":\"5570-5574\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11709012/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_693_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_693_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:没有临床试验比较β -内酰胺类抗生素和氟喹诺酮类药物治疗急性无并发症细菌性扁桃体炎的疗效和安全性。本研究旨在比较阿莫昔拉夫(阿莫西林/克拉维酸)、头孢多肟和左氧氟沙星单药治疗急性无并发症细菌性扁桃体炎的疗效和安全性。方法:这是一项前瞻性、开放标签、平行组研究,将90例急性无并发症细菌性扁桃体炎患者平均分为三组,接受复方阿莫昔拉625mg片,每日3次,头孢多肟200 mg片,每日2次,左氧氟沙星500 mg片,每日1次,连用5天。以治疗结束时的主观临床改善和客观细菌学治愈率评价疗效。通过监测研究期间的不良事件来评估安全性。结果:复方阿莫昔拉夫、头孢多肟和左氧氟沙星在第3天和第7天的临床反应相当;然而,在第5天,左氧氟沙星的治愈率明显降低,但改良率高于共阿莫昔拉夫和头孢多肟。在细菌学上,三组在第1周的反应是相似的。所有药物均具有良好的耐受性,并有一些自限性不良反应。结论:复方阿莫昔拉夫、头孢多肟和左氧氟沙星治疗急性无并发症细菌性扁桃体炎的临床疗效和细菌学疗效相当,且具有良好的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative efficacy and safety of co-amoxiclav, cefpodoxime proxetil, and levofloxacin in patients with acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis: A prospective, open-label, parallel group study.

Background: No clinical trials have compared the efficacy and safety of beta-lactam antibiotics and fluoroquinolones in acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of co-amoxiclav (amoxicillin/clavulanic acid), cefpodoxime proxetil, and levofloxacin monotherapy in patients with acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis.

Methods: This was a prospective, open-label, parallel-group study where 90 patients with acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis were equally divided into three groups to receive either tablet co-amoxiclav 625 mg thrice daily, tablet cefpodoxime proxetil 200 mg twice daily, or tablet levofloxacin 500 mg once daily for five days. The efficacy was assessed by subjective clinical improvement and objective bacteriological cure at the end of treatment. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events during the study period.

Results: Co-amoxiclav, cefpodoxime proxetil, and levofloxacin showed comparable clinical responses on days three and seven; however, on day five, levofloxacin showed a significantly reduced cure rate, but a higher improvement rate, than co-amoxiclav and cefpodoxime proxetil. Bacteriologically, the responses were similar in all three groups at week 1. All drugs were well tolerated with a few self-limiting adverse effects.

Conclusions: Co-amoxiclav, cefpodoxime proxetil, and levofloxacin showed a comparable clinical and bacteriological cure in acute uncomplicated bacterial tonsillitis and showed a good safety profile.

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
7.10%
发文量
884
审稿时长
40 weeks
×
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