论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较头孢曲松、头孢克肟治疗下呼吸道感染的安全、有效性及医疗经济学意义。方法:选择100名下呼吸道感染病人,随机分为头孢曲松、头孢克肟序贯治疗组(A组)和单用头孢曲松组(B组),每组受试者50例。A组使用头孢曲松1q静脉滴注,每日2次,疗程7d,病情缓解后,转换为头孢克肟胶囊200 mg,每日2次,再治疗7 d。B组单用头孢曲松1g静脉点滴,每日2次,疗程14 d。最后比较二种治疗方法的疗效差异。结果:A组的临床疗效和细菌清除率分别为80％和76％;B组的临床疗效和细菌清除率分别为86％和75％。二组疗效比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。两组不良反应不常见而轻微。结论:头孢曲松、头孢克肟序贯治疗临床疗效确切可靠、经济、方便。
Objective: To compare the safety, efficacy and medical economics significance of ceftriaxone and cefixime in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infection. Methods: One hundred patients with lower respiratory tract infection were selected and divided into ceftriaxone, cefixime sequential group (group A) and ceftriaxone alone group B (group B), with 50 subjects in each group. Group A was given ceftriaxone 1q intravenously twice daily for 7 days. After remission, the patients were switched to cefixime capsules 200 mg twice daily for another 7 days. Group B alone ceftriaxone 1g intravenous infusion twice daily for 14 days. Finally, compare the efficacy of the two treatment methods. Results: The clinical efficacy and bacterial clearance in group A were 80% and 76%, respectively. The clinical efficacy and bacterial clearance in group B were 86% and 75%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). Adverse reactions were not common in both groups. Conclusion: The efficacy of ceftriaxone and cefixime sequential therapy is reliable, economical and convenient.