#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Öèòàòà:
Ëåâîôëîêñàöèí èññëåäîâàëñÿ ó äåòåé êàê â ïëàíå ôàðìàêîêèíåòèêè [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] òàê è â ÐÊÈ äëÿ ëå÷åíèÿ âíåáîëüíè÷íîé ïíåâìîíèè ó äåòåé â âîçðàñòå îò 6 ìåñÿöåâ äî 16 ëåò [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ].Ýôôåêòèâíîñòü ó äåòåé íå óñòóïàëà äðóãèì àíòèáèîòèêàì ïðè ñðàâíèìîé ÷àñòîòå ïîáî÷íûõ ýôôåêòîâ. Àíàëèç ÷àñòîòû ïîáî÷íûõ ýôôåêòîâ â 3 ÐÊÈ ëåâîôëîêñàöèíà ó äåòåé (áîëåå 2200 ïàöèåíòîâ) ïîêàçàë, ÷òî èõ ÷àñòîòà è õàðàêòåð, â öåëîì, íå îòëè÷àëñÿ îò äðóãèõ àíòèáèîòèêîâ, çà èñêëþ÷åíèåì ÷àñòîòû ïîáî÷íûõ ýôôåêòîâ ñî ñòîðîíû ñêåëåòíî-ìûøå÷íîé ñèñòåìû, êîòîðàÿ îêàçàëàñü ïðèìåðíî â 2 ðàçà âûøå, ÷åì äëÿ ÀÁ äðóãèõ ãðóïï [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] . Íåñìîòðÿ íà ïîçèòèâíûå ðåçóëüòàòû êëèíè÷åñêèõ èñïûòàíèé FDA äî ñèõ ïîð íå îäîáðèëà ïðèìåíåíèå ëåâîôëîêñàöèíà ó äåòåé. Ïðåäóïðåæäåíèå î íåæåëàòåëüíîñòè íàçíà÷åíèÿ ôòîðõèíîëîíîâ äî êîíöà ïåðèîäà ðîñòà ñîõðàíÿåòñÿ è äëÿ ïîäãðóïïû "ðåñïèðàòîðíûõ". Ñïàðôëîêñàöèí, ïîæàëóé, íàèìåíåå áåçîïàñíûé èç èìåþùèõñÿ "ðåñïèðàòîðíûõ" ôòîðõèíîëîíîâ è åãî ïðèìåíåíèå â ðÿäå ñòðàí ïðåêðàùåíî (äîñòàòî÷íî âûñîêàÿ ÷àñòîòà ôîòîñåíñèáèëèçàöèè è óäëèíåíèÿ QT). Ó äåòåé ñïàðôëîêñàöèí íå èññëåäîâàëñÿ è íèêîãäà îäîáðåí ó íèõ íå áûë. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
ÿ íå Àëåêñàíäð,íî ïîçâîëþ ñåáå îòâåèòü , ÷òî äëÿ ôòîðõèíîëîíîâ ïðîòèâîïîêàçàíèå âîçðàñò äî 18 ëåò
|
#64
|
||||
|
||||
|
#65
|
||||
|
||||
ß áû ñêàçàëà-"ïî æèçíåííûì ïîêàçàíèÿì". Íî â íàëè÷èè èìååòñÿ ñòîëüêî! îòëè÷íûõ àíòèáàêòåðèàëüíûõ ïðåïàðàòîâ, ñêîìáèíèðîâàâ êîòîðûå ,ïåðåêðîåòñÿ ñïåêòð âîçäåéñòâèÿ ÐÔÕ. Òàê çà÷åì æå ðèñêîâàòü çäîðîâüåì ðåáåíêà?
PS: íå îòïðàâëÿåòñÿ "îäîáðÿëêà" äëÿ filbi! Âîáùåì-óæå 3 ðàçà "îäîáðÿìñ!" |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Clinical Infectious Diseases 2007;44:568–576
CLINICAL PRACTICE INVITED ARTICLE Acute Respiratory Infection Due to Chlamydia pneumoniae: Current Status of Diagnostic Methods Swati Kumar and Margaret R. Hammerschlag Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York Reliable diagnosis of respiratory infection due to Chlamydia pneumoniae and investigation of its role in chronic diseases remain difficult because of the absence of well-standardized and commercially available diagnostic tests. In 2001, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published recommendations for standardizing the diagnostic approach. In this review, we discuss the current state of knowledge of C. pneumoniae–associated respiratory infections in the context of epidemiological studies published during the past 5 years, with particular emphasis on the diagnostic strategies used and their impact on results. The single most likely factor underlying wide variations in data is the significant interstudy variation of the choice of diagnostic methods and criteria used. Adoption of a more unified approach, both for choices of diagnostic methods and for validation of new molecular assays, is long overdue and will be critically important for development of a standardized test for clinical laboratories. Epidemiology of Respiratory Infection Due to C. pneumoniae Studies of C. pneumoniae infection published during the 1990s found the organism to be associated with 6%–22% of lower respiratory tract infections in children and adults, varying with the population studied and diagnostic methods used [2]. Thirty additional studies have been published about C. pneumoniae–associated lower respiratory infections since 2000. Data from selected studies chosen to represent different populations from around the world are summarized in tables 1 [3–9] and 2 [10–16]. As shown in these tables, the proportion of lower respiratory tract infections in children and adults, including community-acquired pneumonia, associated with C. pneumoniae infection during the past 5 years has ranged from 0% to 44.2%, varying with age and the geographic location of the population examined and the diagnostic methods used [3–16]. The diagnosis of C. pneumoniae infection in most studies was based on serological testing alone [6, 12, 13, 16]; some used a PCR assay alone [15] or a serological test and a PCR assay [3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14], and only 2 studies used culture in combination with a serological test or PCR assay [8, 11]. Despite the CDC recommendations [1], there was a high degree of heterogeneity from study to study in the serological methods and criteria used. In a number of studies, the type of assay and the criteria used were not specified, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, to compare results from one study to another... Free Full Text: [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Öèòàòà:
Ò.å. åñëè â íåïîëíîé ñðåäíåé øêîëå èìååòñÿ âñïûøêà ðåñïèðàòîðíîãî çàáîëåâàíèÿ ñ êîêëþøåïîäîáíûì êàøëåì, ýòî âñïûøêà îáû÷íî îáóñëîâëåíà C. pneumoniae. Èç â îáùåé ñëîæíîñòè 230 ñòóäåíòîâ 136 (59 %) èìåëè òàêîé êàøåëü. Îáíàðóæåíèå C. pneumoniae èíôåêöèè áûëî ó 46 ïàöèåíòîâ. Áîðäåòåëëû pertussis, Áîðäåòåëëà parapertussis, Ìèêîïëàçìà pneumoniae, Chlamydia trachomatis, Chlamydia psittaci èëè âèðóñû áûëè îòðèöàòåëüíû. [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] [Ññûëêè äîñòóïíû òîëüêî çàðåãèñòðèðîâàííûì ïîëüçîâàòåëÿì ] Òàêæå ïîêàçûâàåò î÷åíü âûñîêèé óðîâåíü õëàìèäèéíîé èíôåêöèè îñîáåííî ïðè áðîíõèòàõ ó äåòåé. («ó äåòåé ñ õðèïàìè») ßíà ñïàñèáî. |