...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical therapeutics >Use of ciprofloxacin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with intra-abdominal infections.
【24h】

Use of ciprofloxacin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with intra-abdominal infections.

机译:使用环丙沙星治疗住院的腹腔内感染患者。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Numerous combination and single-agent antimicrobial regimens are available for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Selection of empiric agents must be directed at providing reliable activity against endotoxin-generating Escherichia coli, other gram-negative facultative bacteria, and anaerobes such as Bacteroides fragilis. Safety profiles, pharmacokinetic profiles, and cost-effectiveness must also be considered. Use of fluoroquinolones for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections has recently been advocated. METHODS: We review 2 prospective, comparative clinical trials conducted between 1992 and 2002 that evaluated the efficacy and safety of IV ciprofloxacin in patients with intra-abdominal infections. Separate pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted for each study are also reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 4 ciprofloxacin studies (2 clinical, 2 pharmacoeconomic) comprise the database. The combination of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole was at least as effective as imipenem/cilastatin and clinically more effective than piperacillin/tazobactam therapy, based on clinical success end points. In 1 trial, treatment success for the clinically valid population was reported for 84% (93/111) of patients treated with IV ciprofloxacin/metronidazole, 86% (91/106) of those treated with IV/oral ciprofloxacin/metronidazole, and 81% of those treated with IV imipenem/cilastatin (91/113). The IV/oral ciprofloxacin/metronidazole regimen had a statistically significant lower mean infection-related cost than the IV only ciprofloxacin/metronidazole plus imipenem groups (difference of approximately 1100 US dollars; P = 0.029). In the second clinical trial, clinical resolution rates were statistically different for patients receiving IV/oral ciprofloxacin/metronidazole (74%) versus IV piperacillin/tazobactam therapy (63%; P = 0.047). Ciprofloxacin/metronidazole was more cost-effective compared with piperacillin/tazobactam (2200 US dollars-3600 US dollars lower cost-effective ratios per patient) regardless of whether the patient had a diagnosis of appendicitis or whether a switch to an oral drug was permissible. CONCLUSIONS: In the studies reviewed herein, the combination of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole was an effective and safe regimen for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. This regimen has potential advantages over exclusively IV regimens, including the option of sequential IV/oral therapy, patient convenience, cost savings, and reduced hospital stay.
机译:背景:多种联合和单药抗菌方案可用于治疗腹腔内感染。经验剂的选择必须针对产生内毒素的大肠杆菌,其他革兰氏阴性兼性细菌和厌氧菌(如脆弱拟杆菌)提供可靠的活性。还必须考虑安全性,药代动力学和成本效益。最近提倡使用氟喹诺酮类药物治疗腹腔内感染。方法:我们回顾了1992年至2002年之间进行的2项前瞻性,比较性临床试验,这些试验评估了静脉环丙沙星在腹腔内感染患者中的疗效和安全性。还审查了对每个研究进行的单独药物经济学分析。结果:总共有4项环丙沙星研究(2项临床研究,2项药物经济学)构成了数据库。根据临床成功终点,环丙沙星加甲硝唑的组合至少与亚胺培南/西司他丁有效,并且在临床上比哌拉西林/他唑巴坦疗法更有效。在一项试验中,据报道,接受环丙沙星/甲硝唑静脉注射治疗的患者中有84%(93/111)的临床有效人群的治疗成功,经静脉/口服环丙沙星/甲硝唑治疗的患者中的86%(91/106)和81接受静脉注射亚胺培南/西司他丁治疗的患者的百分比(91/113)。与仅静脉注射环丙沙星/甲硝唑加亚胺培南组相比,静脉注射/口服环丙沙星/甲硝唑方案具有统计学上显着更低的平均感染相关成本(差异约为1100美元; P = 0.029)。在第二项临床试验中,接受静脉内/口服环丙沙星/甲硝唑(74%)与静脉内哌拉西林/他唑巴坦治疗(63%; P = 0.047)的患者的临床解决率在统计学上不同。与哌拉西林/他唑巴坦相比,环丙沙星/甲硝唑的成本效益更高(每位患者较低的成本效益比为2200美元至3600美元),无论患者是否诊断为阑尾炎或是否允许使用口服药物。结论:在本文回顾的研究中,环丙沙星加甲硝唑的组合是治疗腹腔内感染的有效且安全的方案。与仅静脉注射方案相比,该方案具有潜在的优势,包括选择顺序静脉注射/口服治疗,患者便利,节省成本和减少住院时间。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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