摘要
To compare the efficacy and safety of two aminoglycoside antibiotics, etimicin and netilmicin, in the treatment of bacterial infections Methods A randomized, open label, controlled clinical trial was conducted for the treatment of 65 patients hospitalized with respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, and skin and tissue infections Thirty four patients received etimicin and thirty one patients received netilmicin at a dose of 100?mg every 12 hours by intravenous infusion The duration of treatment was 7-10 days in both groups Results 47 patients were enrolled in the etimicin group; 35 patients were assessable for safety and 34 patients were assessable for efficacy, 46 patients were enrolled in the netilmicin group; 32 patients were assessable for safety and 31 patients were assessable for efficacy The results show that overall efficacy was 85 3% for the etimicin group and 83 9% for the netilmicin group, whereas bacterial clearance rates were 87 5% for the etimicin group and 89 7% for the netilmicin group The incidence of adverse reactions was 8 6% (3/35) and 9 4% (3/32), respectively Conclusion Etimicin and netilmicin were effective and safe for the treatment of respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, and skin and tissue infections The results show there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups ( P >0 05)
To compare the efficacy and safety of two aminoglycoside antibiotics, etimicin and netilmicin, in the treatment of bacterial infections Methods A randomized, open label, controlled clinical trial was conducted for the treatment of 65 patients hospitalized with respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, and skin and tissue infections Thirty four patients received etimicin and thirty one patients received netilmicin at a dose of 100?mg every 12 hours by intravenous infusion The duration of treatment was 7-10 days in both groups Results 47 patients were enrolled in the etimicin group; 35 patients were assessable for safety and 34 patients were assessable for efficacy, 46 patients were enrolled in the netilmicin group; 32 patients were assessable for safety and 31 patients were assessable for efficacy The results show that overall efficacy was 85 3% for the etimicin group and 83 9% for the netilmicin group, whereas bacterial clearance rates were 87 5% for the etimicin group and 89 7% for the netilmicin group The incidence of adverse reactions was 8 6% (3/35) and 9 4% (3/32), respectively Conclusion Etimicin and netilmicin were effective and safe for the treatment of respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, and skin and tissue infections The results show there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups ( P >0 05)
