头孢噻肟钠联合阿奇霉素治疗小儿肺炎支原体合并流感嗜血杆菌感染的疗效分析

Analysis of the Efficacy of Cefotaxime Sodium Combined with Azithromycin in the Treatment of Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae Co-Infection in Children

摘要: 目的：探讨头孢噻肟钠联合阿奇霉素与阿奇霉素单用治疗小儿肺炎支原体(MP)合并流感嗜血杆菌(Hi)感染的疗效对比。方法：选取2023年6月~2024年6月我院收治的MP合并Hi感染的80例儿童为研究对象，按治疗时给药不同分为阿奇霉素组(n = 40)和联用组(n = 40)。阿奇霉素组单用阿奇霉素，联合组采用头孢噻肟钠联合阿奇霉素治疗。比较2组病情严重度、体温、就诊时间、治疗前后感染指标变化情况、临床疗效、临床症状改善情况、住院天数、不良反应发生率。结果：2组病情严重度发生率、临床总有效率比较，差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组就诊时间、体温、治疗前后感染指标变化情况、临床症状改善情况、住院天数、不良反应发生率比较，差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。两组成本–效果分析，联用组成本效果比高于阿奇霉素组，联用组每增加一个疗效单位，抗菌药物费用增加16.65元，住院费用增加165.23元。敏感性分析结果与成本–效果分析结果趋势一致，表明成本–效果分析结果可靠。结论：在本研究的样本中，头孢噻肟钠联合阿奇霉素与阿奇霉素单药治疗相比，未观察到临床疗效有统计学上的显著差异。考虑到本研究为小样本回顾性研究的局限性，此结论尚需更大规模的前瞻性随机对照研究来证实。

Abstract: Objective: To compare the efficacy of cefotaxime sodium combined with azithromycin and azithromycin alone in the treatment of children with Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP) and Haemophilus influenzae (Hi) co-infection. Methods: A total of 80 children with MP and Hi co-infection admitted to our hospital from June 2023 to June 2024 were selected as the research subjects and divided into the azithromycin group (n = 40) and the combination group (n = 40) based on the different medications given during treatment. The azithromycin group was treated with azithromycin alone, while the combination group was treated with cefotaxime sodium combined with azithromycin. The severity of the disease, body temperature, time of visit, changes in infection indicators before and after treatment, clinical efficacy, improvement of clinical symptoms, length of hospital stay, and incidence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of disease severity and the total clinical effective rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the time of visit, body temperature, changes in infection indicators before and after treatment, improvement of clinical symptoms, length of hospital stay, and incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups (P > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness analysis of the two groups showed that the cost-effectiveness ratio of the combination group was higher than that of the azithromycin group. For each additional unit of clinical efficacy in the combination group, the cost of antibacterial drugs increased by 16.65 yuan, and the hospitalization cost increased by 165.23 yuan. The results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of the cost-effectiveness analysis, indicating that the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis were reliable. Conclusion: In this study’s sample, no statistically significant difference in clinical efficacy was observed between cefotaxime sodium combined with azithromycin and azithromycin monotherapy. Given the limitations of this small-sample retrospective study, this conclusion requires confirmation through larger-scale prospective randomized controlled trials.