4.7 Article

Results of a clinical trial of clinafloxacin versus imipenem/cilastatin for intraabdominal infections

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 233, 期 1, 页码 79-87

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000658-200101000-00013

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Clinafloxacin is a novel quinolone with wide activity against the plethora of microorganisms encountered in intraabdominal infections. This trial was performed to examine its clinical efficacy. Summary Background Data Clinafloxacin is representative of a new class of quinolones with considerable antimicrobial activity resulting from their mechanisms of action and pharmacodynamics. There is, however, concern about specific potential toxicities, including photosensitivity. Methods This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to compare clinafloxacin with imipenem/cilastatin as adjuncts in the management of complicated intraabdominal infections. Results Five hundred twenty-nine patients were included in the intent-to-treat population, with 312 meeting all criteria for the valid population. Patients with a wide range of infections were enrolled; perforated or abscessed appendicitis was the most common (approximately 50%). One hundred twenty-three of the 150 valid patients treated with clinafloxacin (82%) had successful outcomes, as did 130 of the 162 (80%) treated with imipenem. For the intent-to-treat groups, 219 of 259 patients treated with clinafloxacin (85%) had successful outcomes, as did 219 of 270 patients treated with imipenem/ cilastatin (81%). Treatment failure occurred in 39 patients who underwent drainage. There were substantially more gramnegative organisms recovered from the patients with treatment failure who were initially treated with imipenem/cilastatin. Conclusions The results of this study clearly demonstrate the safety and efficacy of clinafloxacin in the treatment of a range of intraabdominal infections, and in patients with a broad range of physiologic disturbances.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据