These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Comparative clinical study of azithromycin with tosufloxacin tosilate in the treatment of acute odontogenic infection].
    Author: Sasaki J, Kaneko A, Karakida K, Shiiki K, Sakamoto H, Naitoh H, Yamane N, Tomita F, Katoh H, Yoshida H.
    Journal: Jpn J Antibiot; 1995 Sep; 48(9):1093-118. PubMed ID: 7474331.
    Abstract:
    To objectively assess azithromycin (AZM) for its clinical efficacy, safety and usefulness in the treatment of acute odontogenic infections (periodontitis, pericoronitis and osteitis of the jaw), a double-blind, randomized, multi-center trial was conducted in which tosufloxacin tosilate (TFLX) was used as the control drug. AZM was administered to 90 patients at a once-daily 500 mg dose for 3 days, while TFLX was given to 90 patients at a 150 mg t.i.d. dose for 7 days. 1. The clinical efficacy rates calculated according to evaluation at an endpoint set on the 3rd day of treatment by a committee of experts were 85.9% (73/85) in the AZM group and 78.9% (71/90) in the TFLX group. No statistically significant difference between the treatment groups was detected, and clinical equivalence was verified (p = 0.002). 2. The clinical efficacy rates according to evaluations made by investigators at the end-of-tail point was 87.1% (74/85) in the AZM group and 73.3% (66/90) in the TFLX group. The efficacy rate in the AZM group was higher than that in the TFLX group, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.006). 3. The bacteriological elimination rate in the AZM group was 97.5% (39/40) and that in the TFLX group was 85.7% (30/35), but the difference was deemed statistically not significant. 4. Adverse reactions were observed in 11 of 88 cases (12.5%) in the AZM group and 5 of 90 cases (5.6%) in the TFLX group. Six of 85 cases (7.1%) in the AZM group and 5 of 85 cases (5.9%) in the TFLX group showed laboratory abnormalities. However, neither adverse reactions nor laboratory abnormalities showed any differences in statistical significance between the treatment groups. 5. The safety rates, expressed as percentages of cases with no adverse events and no laboratory abnormalities, was 84.1% (74/88) in the AZM group and 90.0% (81/90) in the TFLX group. The difference between the two groups was found to be statistically insignificant. 6. The usefulness rates, the ratio of cases rated as either "Very useful" or "Useful", was 83.9% (73/87) in the AZM group, and it was statistically higher (p = 0.025) than 72.2% (65/90) obtained for TFLX group. Judging from the above results, it has been concluded that AZM is as useful as TFLX in the treatment of acute dental infections.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]