Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of sparfioxacin in treatment of the acute respiratory tract infections. Methods A randomized-controlled clinical trial was carried out. Sparfloxaein 200 mg once daily and ofioxacin, as a control drug, 200 mg twice a day, both drugs were given by infusion for 7-14 days. There were 30 cases in each group. Results The clinical cure rates and the clinical efficacy rates of the two groups were 33.33%, 26.67%, and 80.00%, 76.67 % respectively. The bacterial clearance rates were 89.66% and 89.29% respectively. The adverse drug reaction rates were 13.33% and 16.67% respectively. There were no statistical differences between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). Photosensitive reaction was not observed in this study. Conclusion Sparfloxacin was effective in the treatment of the respiratory infections.
Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of pazufloxacin for the treatment of moderate and severe acute bacterial respiratory infections.Methods A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of pazufloxacin versus levofloxacin. Patients in the pazufloxacin group were treated with pazufloxacin (500 mg twice daily for 7 to 10 days), and patients in the levofloxacin group were treated with levofloxacin (300 mg twice daily for 7 to 10 days). Results A total of 134 patients were enrolled in the study, 68 cases in pazufloxacin group and 66 cases in levofloxacin group were assessable for clinical efficacy by full analysis set(FAS). At the end of the treatment, in FAS analysis the total cure rates and effective rates were 52.9% and 86.7% in pazufloxacin group, 57.6% and 87.9% in levofloxacin group, in PPS analysis the total cure rats and effective rates were 57.1% and 93.7% in pazufloxacin group respectively, 61.3% and 93.6% in levofloxacin group. The bacterial clearance rates were 92.5% and 94.3% respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Adverse reactions were observed in 16.2% of patients in the pazufloxacin group and in 16.7% of patients in the levofloxacin group. These reactions were mainly local stimulation, nausea and diarrhea. No serious adverse event was reported in either group. Conclusion Pazufloxacin is as effective and safe as levofloxacin for the treatment of moderate to severe acute respiratory infections.
【摘要】 目的 探讨左氧氟沙星联合阿奇霉素治疗老年难治性呼吸道感染的疗效及安全性。 方法 选择2005年2月-2010年9月收治的高龄难治性呼吸道细菌感染患者68例，随机分为治疗组和对照组。治疗组34例，给予左氧氟沙星联合阿奇霉素；对照组34例，给予左氧氟沙星，两组总疗程皆为15 d。观察两组患者的临床疗效、细菌清除率和不良反应。 结果 治疗组的总有效率为64.71%，对照组总有效率为32.35%，两组差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05） 。治疗组细菌清除率为76.19%，对照组细菌清除率为36.36%，两组差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05） 。治疗组和对照组的不良反应发生率分别为5.88%和8.82%，差异无统计学意义（Pgt;0.05）。结论 左氧氟沙星联合阿奇霉素治疗老年难治性呼吸道感染疗效高， 能有效清除细菌， 不良反应较少， 值得临床推广应用。【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of levofloxacin combined with azithromycin on refractory respiratory infections in elder patients. Methods A total of 68 elder patients with refractory respiratory infections in our hospital from February 2005 to September 2010 were randomly divided into two groups: treatment group (n=34) and control group (n=34). The patients in treatment group were treated with levofloxacin combined with azithromycin; while the patients in the control group were treated with levofloxacin alone. The total treatment periods of both groups were 15 days. The therapeutic efficacy, eradication rate of pathogens and the rate of aelverse reactions were observed. Results The therapeutic effect rate was 64.71% in the treatment group and 32.35% in the control group, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (Plt;0.05). The eradication rate of pathogens was 76.19% in the treatment group and 36.36% in the control group, and the difference was significant (Plt;0.05). The rate of the adverse reaction was 5.88% in the treatment group and 8.82% in the control group, and there were no significant differences between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). Conclusion Levofloxacin combined with Azithromycin is effective on refractory respiratory tract infection in elder patients, which can effectively remove the bacteria with few adverse reaction.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Levofloxacin combined with Cefoperazone/Sulbactam on the patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia ( VAP) . Methods The clinical effect of Levofloxacin combined with Cefoperazone/ Sulbactam on ventilator-associated pneumonia in 58 paitiens with VAP were retrospectively analyzed. Results 26 patients ( 44. 8% ) were cured, 18 patients( 31. 1% ) were marked improved, and 14 patients ( 24. 1% ) were ineffective. The total clinical efficacy rate was 75. 9% . 55 strains of bacteria were isolated, and Gram-negative bacilli were dominant pathogens( 78. 2% ) . The bacterial clearance rate was 78. 2% . The prevalence of adverse reaction was 5. 1% . Conclusion Levofloxacin combined with Cefoperazone/ Sulbactam is effective and safe for patients with VAP.
Objective To access the effectiveness and safety of levofloxacin in controlling multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Methods The electronic searches in databases of PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM and VIP, handsearches and other searches were conducted from the date of their establishment to April 2011 for collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on levofloxacin treating MDR-TB. Two researchers independently screened the literature according to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, extracted the data, assessed the quality of the included studies by adopting the Jadad scale, and performed Meta-analysis by using RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 31 RCTs involving 2836 cases were included. The results of meta-analysis showed: a) Compared with the placebo group, levofloxacin could increase the sputum negative conversion rate after 3-month taking and at the end of the treatment period; b) Compared with the ofloxacin group, levofloxacin could increase the sputum negative conversion rate after 3 months and at the end of the treatment period; c) levofloxacin replacing either ethambutol or streptomycin could increase the sputum negative conversion rate after 3 months and at the end of the treatment period; d) Compared with the levofloxacin group, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin could increase the sputum negative conversion rate after 3 months and at the end of the treatment period; e) There was no significant difference in the adverse reaction rate between each of the medication regimens (P=0.19). Conclusion Levofloxacin is more effective for MDR-TB than ofloxacin, ethambutol and streptomycin, but it is inferior to gatifloxacin or moxifloxacin. Its adverse reaction rate is equivalent to other medicines’.
Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of moxifloxacin versus levofloxacin for the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Methods Such databases as PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and VIP were electronically searched, and the relevant conference proceedings were also hand-searched. The search time was up to July, 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on moxifloxacin versus levofloxacin for AECOPD were included. Literature was screened according to inclusive and exclusive criteria, data were extracted, quality was assessed, and then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0. Results A total of 6 RCTs involving 482 patients with AECOPD were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that moxifloxacin group was significantly superior to levofloxacin group in the effective rate (OR=3.15, 95%CI 1.80 to 5.49, Plt;0.000 1). The bacterial clearance rate in moxifloxacin group was also higher than that in the levofloxacin group (OR=2.79, 95%CI 1.30 to 5.97, P=0.008). In addition, adverse effects of moxifloxacin group were less than levofloxacin (OR=0.48, 95%CI 0.24 to 0.98, P=0.04). Conclusion Based on current studies, moxifloxacin is superior to levofloxacin in improving effective rate and bacterial clearance rate, and in lowering side effects when treating AECOPD. Hence it is considerable to use moxifloxacin instead of levofloxacin in the treatment of AECOPD if necessary. Due to the limitation of both quantity and quality of included studies, this conclusion should be further confirmed with more high quality and large sample studies.
Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of prulifloxacin in the treatment of urinary tract infection. Methods The double-blind, double dummy and randomized controlled method was adopted. One hundred and forty-four patients were randomized to the treatment group (prulifloxacin , 4 tablets, bid) and the control group (levofloxacin, 4 tablets, bid). The randomization code was produced by computer. The treatment duration for both groups was from 7 to 10 days. Results Data were analyzed on the basis of full analysis sets (FAS) and per-protocol (PP) analysis. The total improvement rates of the trial and control groups were 85.07% and 88.52% respectively by FAS analysis, and 90.48% and 91.53% respectively by PP analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups in improvement rates (Pgt;0.05). Bacterial negative rates in the trial and control groups were 93.75% and 93.88% respectively by FAS analysis and 97.83% and 97.87% respectively by PP analysis. The results showed no statistical significance difference between the two groups in bacterial negative rates (Pgt;0.05). The adverse events in the prulifloxacin and levofloxacin groups were 2.80% and 5.60% respectively. Conclusion Prulifloxacin has the same clinical effectiveness as levofloxacin with a few toxic adverse effects in the treatment of urinary tract infection.
目的 探讨含左氧氟沙星的三联疗法作为一线方案对幽门螺杆菌感染治疗的有效性和安全性。 方法 选择2008年9月－2011年3月125例确诊为幽门螺杆菌感染的初治患者，随机分为雷贝拉唑、阿莫西林联合左氧氟沙星组（A组）和雷贝拉唑、阿莫西林联合克拉霉素组（B组），经治疗7 d后比较两组根除率和不良反应发生率。 结果 A、B组幽门螺杆菌符合方案分析根除率分别为91.8%、77.6%，意向性治疗根除率分别为88.9%、72.6%，A组根除率高于B组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。A、B组不良反应发生率分别为4.8%、3.2%（P＞0.05）。 结论 以左氧氟沙星、阿莫西林、雷贝拉唑为组合的三联疗法能显著提高幽门螺杆菌感染的初治成功率，不良反应少，安全有效。
【摘要】 目的 系统评价司帕沙星对比氧氟沙星治疗耐多药肺结核的有效性和安全性。 方法 计算机检索Cochrane图书馆临床对照试验资料库（2010年第2期）和PubMed（1978年-2010年10月）、EMBASE（1974年-2010年10月）、中国学术期刊网络出版总库（1978年-2010年10月）、维普（1989年-2010年10月）、中国生物医学文献数据库（1978年-2010年10月）；手工检索其他相关杂志。检索语种为中文和英文。纳入司帕沙星对比氧氟沙星治疗耐多药肺结核的随机对照试验。按Cochrane系统评价的方法评价纳入研究质量，用RevMan 5.0软件对数据进行Meta分析。 结果 共纳入8篇研究，Meta分析结果显示司帕沙星组与氧氟沙星组相比，痰菌转阴率、病灶显著吸收率、空洞闭合率均高于对照组，差异具有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）。 结论 现有的证据表明，司帕沙星与其他抗结核药物联用治疗难治、耐多药肺结核的疗效优于氧氟沙星的联用方案，但由于纳入的文献数量有限，质量参差不齐，存在潜在的发表偏倚。【Abstract】 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.