目的 評(píng)價(jià)司帕沙星注射液治療急性中、重度呼吸道感染的有效性與安全性.方法 采用多中心隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn).試驗(yàn)藥司帕沙星每次200mg,靜脈滴注,每日一次;對(duì)照藥氧氟沙星每次200mg,靜脈滴注,每日二次,療程均為7-14天.試驗(yàn)組和對(duì)照組各30例.結(jié)果 兩組的治愈率分別為33.33%與26.67%,有效率分別是80.00%與76.67%.細(xì)菌清除率分別是89.66%與89.29%.藥物不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生率分別是13.33%與16.67%.本組病例未見光敏反應(yīng).以上結(jié)果經(jīng)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)處理差異均無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P＞0.05).結(jié)論 司帕沙星注射液是治療急性呼吸道感染的一種有效藥物.
目的 評(píng)價(jià)國(guó)產(chǎn)司帕沙星片治療急性細(xì)菌性感染的臨床療效與安全性.方法 以國(guó)產(chǎn)洛美沙星片為對(duì)照藥進(jìn)行隨機(jī)對(duì)照研究,共治療各種細(xì)菌性感染231例,其中司帕沙星組117例、洛美沙星組114例.司帕沙星200～300mg,每日1次口服,療程5～14d;洛美沙星300mg,每日2次口服,療程5～14 d.結(jié)果 司帕沙星組與對(duì)照組的痊愈率和有效率分別為84.62%與74.56%和94.87%與92.98%.細(xì)菌清除率分別為94.28%和92.02%.組間比較差異無顯著性(P＞0.05).兩組的不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生率分別為7.69%和11.40%(P＞0.05),反應(yīng)多呈輕度,勿需處理可自行緩解.結(jié)論 司帕沙星抗菌譜廣,抗菌活性強(qiáng),為治療中、輕度急性細(xì)菌性感染安全有效的口服抗菌藥物.
【摘要】 目的 系統(tǒng)評(píng)價(jià)司帕沙星對(duì)比氧氟沙星治療耐多藥肺結(jié)核的有效性和安全性?！》椒ā∮?jì)算機(jī)檢索Cochrane圖書館臨床對(duì)照試驗(yàn)資料庫(kù)（2010年第2期）和PubMed（1978年-2010年10月）、EMBASE（1974年-2010年10月）、中國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)期刊網(wǎng)絡(luò)出版總庫(kù)（1978年-2010年10月）、維普（1989年-2010年10月）、中國(guó)生物醫(yī)學(xué)文獻(xiàn)數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)（1978年-2010年10月）；手工檢索其他相關(guān)雜志。檢索語種為中文和英文。納入司帕沙星對(duì)比氧氟沙星治療耐多藥肺結(jié)核的隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn)。按Cochrane系統(tǒng)評(píng)價(jià)的方法評(píng)價(jià)納入研究質(zhì)量，用RevMan 5.0軟件對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行Meta分析。 結(jié)果 共納入8篇研究，Meta分析結(jié)果顯示司帕沙星組與氧氟沙星組相比，痰菌轉(zhuǎn)陰率、病灶顯著吸收率、空洞閉合率均高于對(duì)照組，差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（Plt;0.05）?！〗Y(jié)論 現(xiàn)有的證據(jù)表明，司帕沙星與其他抗結(jié)核藥物聯(lián)用治療難治、耐多藥肺結(jié)核的療效優(yōu)于氧氟沙星的聯(lián)用方案，但由于納入的文獻(xiàn)數(shù)量有限，質(zhì)量參差不齊，存在潛在的發(fā)表偏倚?！続bstract】 Objective To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of sparfloxacin versus ofloxacin in treatment of multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Methods Literatures were retrieved from PubMed (1978-October, 2010), EMBASE (1974-October 2010), Cochrane library (2nd volume, 2010), China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (1978-October, 2010), VIP (1989-October, 2010) and CBM (1978 to October, 2010) by computer, and searched some other relevant journals manually. Chinese and English were both used in the search. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on sparfloxacin versus ofloxacin in treating pulmonary tuberculosis were included in this study. Meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.0 software. Results The meta-analysis of 8 included RCTs showed that the sputum negative conversion rate, focus absorption rate, cavity closure rate in the sparfloxacin group were significantly higher than the ofloxacin group (P＜0.05). Conclusions The analysis indicates that combined treatment with sparfloxacin has a better effect in treating MDR-TB than with ofloxacin. However, the reliability of this review may be affected by the number and quality of studies included. Large-scale randomized controlled trials of high quality are needed to confirm the conclusions above.