较短疗程的抗生素是否足以治疗COPD加重?

{"title":"较短疗程的抗生素是否足以治疗COPD加重?","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.rmedu.2008.08.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>A study was undertaken to determine whether a short course of antibiotic treatment (&lt; or=5 days) is as effective as the conventional longer treatment in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched to July 2006. Studies considered eligible were double-blind randomised clinical trials including adult patients &gt; or=18 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of exacerbation of COPD or chronic bronchitis, no antimicrobial therapy at the time of diagnosis and random assignment to antibiotic treatment for&lt;or=5 days versus &gt;5 days. The primary outcome measure was clinical cure at early follow-up on an intention-to-treat basis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-one studies with a total of 10,698 patients were included. The average quality of the studies was high: the mean (SD) Jadad score was 3.9 (0.9). At early follow-up (&lt; 25 days), the summary odds ratio (OR) for clinical cure with short treatment versus conventional treatment was 0.99 (95% CI 0.90–1.08). At late follow-up the summary OR was 1.0 (95% CI 0.91–1.10) and the summary OR for bacteriological cure was 1.05 (95% CI 0.87–1.26). Similar summary ORs were observed for early cure in trials with the same antibiotic in both arms and in studies grouped by the antibiotic class used in the short-course arm.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>A short course of antibiotic treatment is as effective as the traditional longer treatment in patients with mild to moderate exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and COPD.</p><p>Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101083,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory Medicine: COPD Update","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rmedu.2008.08.014","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are shorter courses of antibiotics adequate in exacerbations of COPD?\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rmedu.2008.08.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>A study was undertaken to determine whether a short course of antibiotic treatment (&lt; or=5 days) is as effective as the conventional longer treatment in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched to July 2006. Studies considered eligible were double-blind randomised clinical trials including adult patients &gt; or=18 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of exacerbation of COPD or chronic bronchitis, no antimicrobial therapy at the time of diagnosis and random assignment to antibiotic treatment for&lt;or=5 days versus &gt;5 days. The primary outcome measure was clinical cure at early follow-up on an intention-to-treat basis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-one studies with a total of 10,698 patients were included. The average quality of the studies was high: the mean (SD) Jadad score was 3.9 (0.9). At early follow-up (&lt; 25 days), the summary odds ratio (OR) for clinical cure with short treatment versus conventional treatment was 0.99 (95% CI 0.90–1.08). At late follow-up the summary OR was 1.0 (95% CI 0.91–1.10) and the summary OR for bacteriological cure was 1.05 (95% CI 0.87–1.26). Similar summary ORs were observed for early cure in trials with the same antibiotic in both arms and in studies grouped by the antibiotic class used in the short-course arm.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>A short course of antibiotic treatment is as effective as the traditional longer treatment in patients with mild to moderate exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and COPD.</p><p>Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Respiratory Medicine: COPD Update\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rmedu.2008.08.014\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Respiratory Medicine: COPD Update\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1745045408000932\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory Medicine: COPD Update","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1745045408000932","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

进行了一项研究,以确定短期抗生素治疗(<(=5天)在慢性支气管炎和慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)急性加重期与常规较长时间治疗同样有效。方法检索截至2006年7月的medline、EMBASE和Cochrane对照试验中心注册库。被认为符合条件的研究是双盲随机临床试验,包括成人患者>年龄≥18岁,临床诊断为COPD或慢性支气管炎加重,诊断时未接受抗微生物治疗,随机分配抗生素治疗时间≥5天vs≥5天。主要结局指标是在意向治疗基础上的早期随访临床治愈。结果纳入21项研究,共10698例患者。研究的平均质量较高:平均(SD) Jadad评分为3.9(0.9)。在早期随访中(<25天),短期治疗与常规治疗临床治愈的总优势比(OR)为0.99 (95% CI 0.90-1.08)。在随访后期,总OR为1.0 (95% CI 0.91-1.10),细菌治愈的总OR为1.05 (95% CI 0.87-1.26)。在两组使用相同抗生素的试验中,以及在短期组使用抗生素类别分组的研究中,观察到类似的总结or。结论对慢性支气管炎和慢性阻塞性肺病轻中度加重患者,短疗程抗生素治疗与传统长疗程抗生素治疗效果相同。经英国医学杂志出版集团许可转载。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are shorter courses of antibiotics adequate in exacerbations of COPD?

Background

A study was undertaken to determine whether a short course of antibiotic treatment (< or=5 days) is as effective as the conventional longer treatment in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched to July 2006. Studies considered eligible were double-blind randomised clinical trials including adult patients > or=18 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of exacerbation of COPD or chronic bronchitis, no antimicrobial therapy at the time of diagnosis and random assignment to antibiotic treatment for<or=5 days versus >5 days. The primary outcome measure was clinical cure at early follow-up on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

Twenty-one studies with a total of 10,698 patients were included. The average quality of the studies was high: the mean (SD) Jadad score was 3.9 (0.9). At early follow-up (< 25 days), the summary odds ratio (OR) for clinical cure with short treatment versus conventional treatment was 0.99 (95% CI 0.90–1.08). At late follow-up the summary OR was 1.0 (95% CI 0.91–1.10) and the summary OR for bacteriological cure was 1.05 (95% CI 0.87–1.26). Similar summary ORs were observed for early cure in trials with the same antibiotic in both arms and in studies grouped by the antibiotic class used in the short-course arm.

Conclusions

A short course of antibiotic treatment is as effective as the traditional longer treatment in patients with mild to moderate exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and COPD.

Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial ATS 2009 Conference Report Diabetes and metabolic dysfunction in COPD Investigating a potential role for macrolide therapy in COPD Comparison of new prognostic assessments in COPD patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1