A multi-center prospective comparative study on the clinical safety of isepamicin (Exacin)

肖永红
2010-01-01
Abstract:Objective: To investigate the clinical safety of isepamicin (Exacin), an aminoglycoside, in a national multi-center prospective and comparative study. Methods: The adverse drug reactions(ADRs) of Exacin and comparative antibacterial agents were observed in the reaction type, severity, relative factor and outcome. Resuits: A total of 2 100 patients treated with Exacin and 1 960 patients treated with other antibacterial agents were enrolled in 64 clinical units from 36 hospitals. Patients in Exacin group (n = 2 047) and in control group (n =1 852) met with the statistic analysis criteria. 51 and 56 patients experienced ADRs in Exacin and control groups, respectively. After 7 and 6 patients with ADRs unrelated with observed antibacterial agents were excluded from the two groups, the ADR rates of Exacin and comparative agents were 2.15% and 2.70%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between two groups (P >0.05). Total incidence of ADRs was 148 reports, among them 131 were drug-related(59 and 72 in Exacin and control groups). No statistically significant difference between two groups was found in the overall severity, drug-relationship, outcome of ADRs(P > 0.05). However, abnormal laboratory examinations (especially blood urea and creatinine increase) were more common in Exacin group and the abnormal clinical symptoms(especially the gastrointestinal symptoms) were obvious in control group. No hearing loss was detected in Exacin group. No difference in drug administrative route, dosage, duration was detected in 44 patients reported ADRs and all the Exacin-treated patients. The clinical biochemical results were comparable between Exacin and control groups. Conclusions: The major ADRs of Exacin are mild gastrointestinal and unspecified symptoms, and renal toxicity is rare. The overall ADRs of Exacin is comparable with that of other non-aminoglyeoside antibacterials. Thus, Eaxicn is a highly safe aminoglycoside product clinically.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?