Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 483–505 | Cite as

Azithromycin

A Review of its Pharmacological Properties and Use as 3-Day Therapy in Respiratory Tract Infections
  • Christopher J. Dunn
  • Lee B. Barradell
Drug Evaluation

Abstract

Synopsis

The azalide antibacterial agent azithromycin is a semisynthetic acid-stable erythromycin derivative with an expanded spectrum of activity and improved tissue pharmacokinetic characteristics relative to erythromycin. The drug is noted for its activity against some Gram-negative organisms associated with respiratory tract infections, particularly Haemophilus influenzae. Azithromycin has similar activity to other macrolides against Streptococcus pneumoniae and Moraxella catarrhalis, and is active against atypical pathogens such as Legionella pneumophila, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumoniae.

Once-daily administration of azithromycin is made possible by the long elimination half-life of the drug from tissue. Azithromycin is rapidly and highly concentrated in a number of cell types after absorption, including leucocytes, monocytes and macrophages. It undergoes extensive distribution into tissue, from where it is subsequently eliminated slowly.

A 3-day oral regimen of once-daily azithromycin has been shown to be as effective as 5- to 10-day courses of other more frequently administered antibacterial agents [such as erythromycin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and Phenoxymethylpenicillin (penicillin V)] in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, pneumonia, sinusitis, pharyngitis, tonsillitis and otitis media. Adverse effects of azithromycin are mainly gastrointestinal in nature and occur less frequently than with erythromycin.

Azithromycin is likely to prove most useful as a 3-day regimen in the empirical management of respiratory tract infections in the community. Its ease of administration and 3-day duration of therapy, together with its good gastrointestinal tolerability, should optimise patient compliance (the highest level of which is achieved with once-daily regimens). Azithromycin is also likely to be useful in the hospital setting, particularly for outpatients and for those unable to tolerate erythromycin.

Overview of in Vitro Antibacterial Activity

Azithromycin has a similar spectrum of activity to erythromycin but is particularly noted for its activity against a number of Gram-negative organisms. On the basis of in vitro data, azithromycin is more active than erythromycin, clarithromycin and roxithromycin against Haemophilus influenzae. Azithromycin shows similar activity to erythromycin, clarithromycin and roxithromycin against Moraxella catarrhalis (with good activity against β-lactamase-positive strains of this organism) and Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Clinical isolates of Legionella pneumophila and Chlamydia pneumoniae are susceptible to azithromycin. In particular, the drug is very active against Mycoplasma pneumoniae, with in vitro data from 1 study showing the mean minimum drug concentration required to inhibit 90% of strains (MIC90) for erythromycin, clarithromycin and roxithromycin to be at least 32.5 times greater than that for azithromycin.

Erythromycin-susceptible strains of Staphylococcus aureus and most streptococci are susceptible to azithromycin, and the drug has shown good activity against S. pyogenes in studies conducted in vitro. Streptococcal and staphylococcal species that are resistant to erythromycin are also likely to be resistant to azithromycin, as are methicillin-resistant strains of S. aureus.

Overview of Pharmacokinetic Properties

Oral administration of azithromycin 500mg produces a peak serum concentration of approximately 0.4 to 0.45 mg/L after 2.5 hours. The drug is rapidly and highly concentrated in white blood cells and macrophages, undergoes extensive tissue distribution and achieves high concentrations in pulmonary and tonsillar tissue.

Azithromycin is largely eliminated unchanged via the faecal route, although some hepatic metabolism does occur. Polyphasic elimination reflects the initial rapid distribution of the drug into tissue and its subsequent slow elimination therefrom. A mean terminal serum elimination half-life of 57 hours has been reported for azithromycin.

Therapeutic Efficacy of 3-Day Azithromycin in Respiratory Tract Infections

Results of comparative trials have shown similar clinical efficacy for 3-day regimens of azithromycin and 5- to 10-day courses of other antibacterial drugs, including amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, erythromycin, clarithromycin, roxithromycin and josamycin in patients with acute bronchitis, acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis or pneumonia. Combined rates of clinical cure and clinical improvement (cure plus improvement) 10 to 14 days after the start of therapy were similar for azithromycin and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid in patients with infections caused mainly by S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae or M. catarrhalis. Bacteriological efficacy (based on the eradication or presumed eradication of infecting pathogens) varied between trials but was similar for azithromycin and the comparator agent in most studies.

Azithromycin administered once a day for 3 days was as effective as a 5-day regimen of the drug in 84 patients with pneumonia caused by atypical pathogens such as M. pneumoniae, C. psittaci or Coxiella burnetii. Most studies in lower respiratory tract infections involved adults, but some paediatric data are also available.

Clinical cure plus improvement rates of 93 to 100% were reported in studies of patients (including children) with upper respiratory tract infections (acute pharyngitis, tonsillitis, sinusitis or otitis media) who received 3-day courses of azithromycin. Similar cure plus improvement rates were observed after 7- to 10-day courses of erythromycin, clarithromycin, roxithromycin, Phenoxymethylpenicillin (penicillin V), amoxicillin (with or without clavulanic acid) and cefaclor in these trials.

Tolerability

Pooled tolerability data from phase II and III studies of 3995 patients aged from 2 to 94 years showed orally administered azithromycin to be associated predominantly with gastrointestinal and central and peripheral nervous system adverse events (most of the patients who were included had received a total dose of azithromycin 1500mg over 5 days). The gastrointestinal tolerability of azithromycin was superior to that of erythromycin in this analysis.

A further analysis of tolerability data from clinical trials which involved 1129 children and young adults, 606 of whom received azithromycin (544 received the 3-day regimen), showed an incidence of adverse events of 7.6% for azithromycin and 13.8% overall for other antibacterial drugs, including amoxicillin, Phenoxymethylpenicillin, erythromycin and flucloxacillin. Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported significantly less frequently by azithromycin recipients than by those receiving other drugs.

Pooled data from 43 studies in 4499 children (aged 6 months to 16 years) who received 3-day azithromycin showed similar overall tolerability for azithromycin and a number of penicillins, cephalosporins and macrolides.

Azithromycin has not been associated with any clinically significant biochemical or haematological abnormalities.

Drug Interactions

Azithromycin does not interact with the hepatic cytochrome P450 system and is not associated with the pharmacokinetic drug interactions seen with erythromycin and other macrolides. The drug does not appear to affect metabolism of theophylline, carbamazepine, midazolam or terfenadine. Furthermore, the anticoagulant effect of a single 15mg dose of warfarin was not affected by concurrent therapy with azithromycin.

Serum cyclosporin and digoxin concentrations should be monitored when either of these 2 agents is given during treatment with azithromycin. Concurrent administration of the drug with ergot derivatives should be avoided.

Dosage and Administration

An oral dose of azithromycin 500mg should be given once daily for 3 days in upper and lower respiratory tract infections. Children aged over 6 months who weigh less than 45kg should receive 10 mg/kg once daily for 3 days. No dosage recommendations have been made for children aged under 6 months. Although it is recommended that azithromycin capsules are taken 1 hour before or 2 hours after food, recent data indicate that this is not necessary with the oral suspension and a novel tablet formulation of the drug.

Keywords

Erythromycin Otitis Medium Clarithromycin Acute Otitis Medium Lower Respiratory Tract Infection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ballow CH, Amsden GW. Azithromycin: the first azalide antibiotic. Ann Pharmacother 1992 Oct; 26: 1253–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Piscitelli SC, Danziger LH, Rodvold KA. Clarithromycin and azithromycin: new macrolide antibiotics. Clin Pharm 1992 Feb; 11: 137–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peters DH, Friedel HA, McTavish D. Azithromycin. A review of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and clinical efficacy. Drugs 1992 Nov; 44: 750–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fass RJ. In vitro activity of Bay y 3118, a new quinolone. Anti-microb Agents Chemother 1993 Nov; 37: 2348–57Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Felmingham D, Robbins MJ, Sanghrajka M, et al. The in vitro activity of some 14-, 15- and 16- membered macrolides against Staphylococcus spp., Legionella spp., Mycoplasma spp. and Ureaplasma urealyticum. Drugs Exp Clin Res 1991; 17(1): 91–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hussain Qadri SM, Ueno Y, Tulio D, et al. In vitro activity of azithromycin: a long-acting azalide. Ann Saudi Med 1994 Mar; 14: 122–4Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maskell JP, Sefton AM, Williams JD. Comparative in-vitro activity of azithromycin and erythromycin against Grampositive cocci, Haemophilus influenzae and anaerobes. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990 Jan; 25 Suppl. A: 19–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neu HC, Chin N-x, Gu J-w. The in-vitro activity of new streptogramins, RP 59500, RP 57669 and RP54476, alone and in combination. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992 Jul; 30 Suppl. A: 83–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sefton AM, Maskell JP, Yong FJ, et al. Comparative in vitro activity of A-56268. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1988; 7: 798–802PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barry AL, Fuchs PC. In vitro activities of a streptogramin (RP59500), three macrolides, and an azalide against four respiratory tract pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995 Jan; 39: 238–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barry AL, Thornsberry C, Jones RN. In vitro activity of a new macrolide, A-56268, compared with that of roxithromycin, erythromycin and clindamycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31: 343–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barry AL. In vitro potency of nine orally administered antimicrobial agents against three respiratory tract pathogens. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992; 11: 867–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rolston KV, Ho DH, LeBlanc B, et al. Comparative in vitro activity of the new erythromycin derivative dirithromycin against Gram-positive bacteria isolated from cancer patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1990; 9: 30–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bauernfeind A. In-vitro activity of dirithromycin in comparison with other new and established macrolides. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Mar; 31 Suppl. C: 39–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Urbášková P, Trupl J, Hupková H, et al. In vitro susceptibility of penicillin-susceptible and resistant pneumococci from central Europe to penicillin G, CP99.219, ciprofloxacin, Sparfloxacin, clindamycin, Cefpodoxime, erythromycin and azithromycin [abstract no. 306]. 7th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; 1995 Mar 26–30; Vienna, 59.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prado V, Romero J, Herrera N, et al. Comparative in vitro activity of new oral macrolides against Streptococcus pyogenes strains isolated in Chile between 1990 and 1992 [in Spanish]. Rev Med Chil 1993 Oct; 121: 1128–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldstein FW, Emirian MF, Coutrot JF, et al. Bacteriostatic and bactericidal activity of azithromycin against Haemophilus influenzae. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990 Jan; 25 Suppl. A: 25–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hardy DJ, Hensey DM, Beyer JM, et al. Comparative in vitro activities of new 14-, 15-, and 16-membered macrolides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988; 32: 1710–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bergeron MG, Lavoie GY, Boucher FDW. Comparative bactericidal activity of Cefixime, carumonam, enoxacin and roxithromycin with those of other antibiotics against resistant Haemophilus influenzae including β-lactam tolerant strains. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 20: 663–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen SCA, Paul ML, Gilbert GL. Susceptibility of Legionella species to antimicrobial agents. Pathology 1993 Apr; 25: 180–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnson DM, Erwin ME, Barrett MS, et al. Antimicrobial activity of ten macrolide, lincosamine and streptogramin drugs tested against Legionella species. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992 Aug; 11: 751–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chardon H, Bellon O, Bourgeois F, et al. Comparative in vitro activity of five macrolides against 190 strains of Branhamella catarrhalis [in French]. Pathol Biol 1989; 37: 382–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spencer RC, Wheat PF. In vitro activity of roxithromycin against Moraxella catarrhalis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992; 15 Suppl. 4: 63S–5SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hammerschlag MR, Qumei KK, Roblin PM. In vitro activities of azithromycin, clarithromycin, L-ofloxacin, and other antibiotics against Chlamydia pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Jul; 36: 1573–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ishida K, Kaku M, Irifune K, et al. In vitro and in vivo activities of macrolides against Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994 Apr; 38: 790–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Renaudin H, Bébéar C. Comparative in vitro activity of azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin and lomeflox-acin against Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Mycoplasma hominis and Ureaplasma urealyticum. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1990 Nov; 9: 838–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; fifth informational supplement. Pennsylvania: NCCLS, 1994. NCCLS document M100-S5Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jones RN. Disk diffusion susceptibility testing of macrolides: the interpretive criteria. In: Bryskier AJ, Butzler J-P, Neu HC, et al., editors. Macrolides: chemistry, pharmacology and clinical uses. Paris: Arnette Blackwell, 1993: 209–15Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Farmer S, Li Z, Hancock REW. Influence of outer membrane mutations on susceptibility of Escherichia coli to the dibasic macrolide azithromycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992 Jan; 29: 27–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Neu HC. Otitis media: antibiotic resistance of causative pathogens and treatment alternatives. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995 Apr; 14(4) Suppl.: 51–6Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fox RA. Treatment recommendations for respiratory tract infections associated with aging. Drugs Aging 1993; 3(1): 40–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peters DH, Clissold SP. Clarithromycin: a review of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs 1992 Jul; 44(1): 117–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Neal TJ, O’Donoghue MAT, Ridgway EJ, et al. In-vitro activity of ten antimicrobial agents against penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992 Jul; 30: 39–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kanatani MS, Guglielmo BJ. The new macrolides: azithromycin and clarithromycin. West J Med 1994 Jan; 160: 31–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Daikos GK. Continuous versus discontinuous antibiotic therapy: the role of the post-antibiotic effect and other factors. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27(2): 157–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Debbia EA, Molinari G, Paglia P, et al. Post-antibiotic effect of azithromycin on respiratory tract pathogens. Drugs Exp Clin Res 1990; 16(12): 615–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Odenholt-Tornqvist I, Löwdin E, Cars O. Postantibiotic effects and postantibiotic sub-MIC effects of roxithromycin, clarithromycin, and azithromycin on respiratory tract pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995 Jan; 39: 221–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Foulds G, Shepard RM, Johnson RB. The pharmacokinetics of azithromycin in human serum and tissues. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990 Jan; 25 Suppl. A: 73–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cooper MA, Nye K, Andrews JM, et al. The pharmacokinetics and inflammatory fluid penetration of orally administered azithromycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990 Oct; 26: 533–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baldwin DR, Ashby JR, Andrews JM, et al. Pulmonary disposition of azithromycin following a single 500 mg oral dose [abstract]. Thorax 1990 Apr; 45: 324PGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Johnson RB. The role of azalide antibiotics in the treatment of chlamydia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991 Jun; 164: 1794–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shepard RM, Weidler DJ, Garg DC, et al. Human pharmacokinetics of azithromycin (CP-62,993/XZ-450), a new macrolide with an extended half-life and high tissue penetration. Proceedings of the 27th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1987 Oct 4–7; New York, 138Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bergogne-Bérézin E. Tissue distribution of dirithromycin: comparison of erythromycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31 Suppl. C: 77–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Periti P, Mazzei T, Mini E, et al. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions of macrolides [published erratum appears in Clin Pharmacokinet 1993 Jan; 24 (1): 70J. Clin Pharmacokinet 1992 Aug; 23: 106–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yakatan GJ, Rasmussen CE, Feis PJ, et al. Bioinequivalence of erythromycin ethylsuccinate and enteric-coated erythromycin pellets following multiple oral doses. J Clin Pharmacol 1985; 25: 36–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rutland J, Berend N, Marlin GE. The influence of food on the bioavailability of new formulations of erythromycin stearate and base. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1979; 8: 343–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bahal N, Nahata MC. The new macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, dirithromycin, and roxithromycin. Ann Pharmacother 1992 Jan; 26: 46–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Paulsen O. Roxithromycin — a macrolide with improved pharmacokinetic properties. Drugs Today 1991; 27(3): 193–222Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fiese EF, Steffen SH. Comparison of the acid stability of azithromycin and erythromycin A. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990 Jan; 25 Suppl. A: 39–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wollmer P, Rhodes CG, Pike VW, et al. Measurement of pulmonary erythromycin concentration in patients with lobar pneumonia by means of positron tomography. Lancet 1982; 2: 1361–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Morris DL, De Souza A, Jones JA, et al. High and prolonged pulmonary tissue concentrations of azithromycin following a single oral dose. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1991 Oct; 10: 859–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cazzola M, Siniscalchi C, Vinciguerra A, et al. Evaluation of lung tissue and hilar lymph node concentrations of azithromycin. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994 Feb; 32: 88–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Baldwin DR, Wise R, Andrews JM, et al. Azithromycin concentrations at the sites of pulmonary infection. Eur Respir J 1990 Sep; 3: 886–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Karma P, Pukander J, Penttila M. Azithromycin concentrations in sinus fluid and mucosa after oral administration. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1991 Oct; 10: 856–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Foulds G, Chan KH, Johnson JT, et al. Concentrations of azithromycin in human tonsillar tissue. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1991 Oct; 10: 853–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gladue RP, Bright GM, Isaacson RE, et al. In vitro and in vivo uptake of azithromycin (CP-62,993) by phagocytic cells: possible mechanism of delivery and release at sites of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989 Mar; 33: 277–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lode H. The pharmacokinetics of azithromycin and their clinical significance. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1991 Oct; 10: 807–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lalak NJ, Morris DL. Azithromycin clinical pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1993 Nov; 25: 370–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mazzei T, Surrenti C, Novelli A, et al. Pharmacokinetics of azithromycin in patients with impaired hepatic function. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 57–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Havlir DV. Mycobacterium avium complex: advances in therapy. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994 Nov; 13: 915–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Amaya-Tapia G, Aguirre-Avalos G, Andrade-Villanueva J, et al. Once-daily azithromycin in the treatment of adult skin and skin-structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 129–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rodriguez-Solares A, Pérez-Gutiérrez F, Prosperi J. A comparative study of the efficacy, safety and tolerance of azithromycin, dicloxacillin and flucloxacillin in the treatment of children with acute skin and skin-structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 103–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lo-Bue AM, Sammartino R, Chisari G, et al. Efficacy of azithromycin compared with spiramycin in the treatment of odontogenic infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl E: 119–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mohs E, Rodriguez-Solares A, Rivas E. A comparative study of azithromycin and amoxycillin in paediatric patients with acute otitis media. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 73–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bradbury F. Comparison of azithromycin versus clarithromycin in the treatment of patients with lower respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 153–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Morandini G, Perduca M, Zannini G, et al. Clinical efficacy of azithromycin in lower respiratory tract infections. J Chemother 1993 Feb; 5: 32–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Principi N. Multicentre comparative study of the efficacy and safety of azithromycin compared with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the treatment of paediatric patients with otitis media. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 14(8): 669–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Marchant CD, Carlin SA, Johnson CE, et al. Measuring the comparative efficacy of antibacterial agents for acute otitis media: the ‘Pollyanna phenomenon’. J Pediatr 1992; 120(1): 72–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gwaltney Jr JM. Acute bronchitis. In: Mandell GL, Gordon Douglas Jr R, Bennett JE, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990: 529–31Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Reynolds HY. Chronic bronchitis and acute infectious exacerbations. In: Mandell GL, Gordon Douglas Jr R, Bennett JE, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990: 531–5Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Donowitz GR, Mandell GL. Acute pneumonia. In: Mandell GL, Gordon Douglas Jr R, Bennett JE, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990: 540–55Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Franckart G, Waelbroeck A, Demol P, et al. Azithromycin vs erythromycin in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections in children [abstract]. 7th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; 1995 Mar 26–30; Vienna, 269.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Principi N, Marchisio P, Biasini G, et al. Azithromycin versus erythromycin in the treatment of paediatric community-acquired pneumonia. Eur J Clin Res 1993; 4: 127–33Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ronchetti R, Blasi F, Grossi E, et al. The role of azithromycin in treating children with community-acquired pneumonia. Curr Ther Res 1994 Aug; 55: 965–70Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Beghi G, Berni F, Carratù L, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of azithromycin versus amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in acute purulent exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. J Chemother 1995 Apr; 7: 146–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gris P. Once-daily, 3-day azithromycin versus a three-times-daily, 10-day course of co-amoxiclav in the treatment of adults with lower respiratory tract infections: results of a randomized, double-blind comparative study. J Antimicrob Chemother. In pressGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hoepelman AIM, Sips AP, van Helmond JLM, et al. A single-blind comparison of three-day azithromycin and ten-day coamoxiclav treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 147–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hoepelman IM, Möllers MJ, Van Schie MH, et al. Azithromycin (A) tablets for 3 days versus 10 days Augmentin (Aug) in adults with lower respiratory tract infection [abstract no. 764]. 7th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; 1995 Mar 26-30; Vienna, 148Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Zachariah J. A randomized, comparative study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a 3-day course of azithromycin versus a 10-day course of co-amoxiclav for the treatment of adult patients with lower respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. In pressGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mertens JCC, van Barneveld PWC, Asin HRG, et al. Double-blind randomized study comparing the efficacies and safeties of a short (3-day) course of azithromycin and a 5-day course of amoxicillin in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992 Jul; 36: 1456–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Laurent K. Efficacy, safety and toleration of azithromycin versus roxithromycin in the treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. In pressGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rizzato G, Montemurro L, Fraioli P, et al. Efficacy of a three day course of azithromycin in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J 1995 Mar; 8: 398–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Schönwald S, Barsic B, Klinar I. Three-day azithromycin compared with ten-day roxithromycin treatment of atypical pnemonia. Scand J Infect Dis 1994; 26(6): 706–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Gonzales R, Sande M. What will it take to stop physicians from prescribing antibiotics in acute bronchitis? [commentary]. Lancet 1995 Mar 18; 345: 665–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Schönwald S, Skerk V, Petricevic I, et al. Comparison of three-day and five-day courses of azithromycin in the treatment of atypical pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1991 Oct; 10: 877–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Pichichero ME. Therapeutic considerations for management of otitis media, sinusitis, and tonsillopharyngitis. Pediatr Asthma Allergy Immunol 1992; 6(3): 167–74Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Pichichero ME. Group A streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis: cost-effective diagnosis and treatment [see comments]. Ann Emerg Med 1995 Mar; 25: 390–403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Bosatra A, Tattoni P, Podda M, et al. Study on effectiveness and tolerance to azithromycin v’s roxithromycin in the treatment of patients with upper respiratory tract infections [in Italian]. Clin Ter 1994 Jan; 144: 27–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Schaad UB. Multicentre evaluation of azithromycin in comparison with co-amoxiclav for the treatment of acute otitis media in children. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 81–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Daniel RR. Comparison of azithromycin and co-amoxiclav in the treatment of otitis media in children. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 65–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hamill J. Multicentre evaluation of azithromycin and penicillin V in the treatment of acute streptococcal pharyngitis and tonsillitis in children. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 89–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    O’Doherty B. Azithromycin versus penicillin V in the treatment of pediatric patients with acute pharyngitis/tonsillitis [abstract no. 1388]. 7th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; 1995 Mar 26-30; Vienna, 269.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Müller O. Comparison of azithromycin versus clarithromycin in the treatment of patients with upper respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 137–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Müller O. An open comparative study of azithromycin and roxithromycin in the treatment of acute upper respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. In pressGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Weippl G. Multicentre comparison of azithromycin versus erythromycin in the treatment of paediatric pharyngitis or tonsillitis caused by group A streptococci. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 95–101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    O’Doherty B. An open comparative study of azithromycin versus cefaclor in the treatment of patients with upper respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. In pressGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Rodriguez AF. An open study to compare azithromycin with cefaclor in the treatment of paediatric patients with acute otitis media. J Antimicrob Chemother. In pressGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Hopkins S. Clinical toleration and safety of azithromycin. Am J Med 1991 Sep 12; 91 Suppl. 3A: 40–5Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Hopkins S. Clinical safety and tolerance of azithromycin in children. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993 Jun; 31 Suppl. E: 111–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Treadway G, Pontani D. Paediatric safety of azithromycin: worldwide experience. J Antimicrob Chemother. In pressGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    George J, Farrell GC. Role of human hepatic cytochromes P450 in drug metabolism and toxicity. Aust NZ J Med 1991; 21(3): 356–62Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    von Rosenstiel N-A, Adam D. Macrolide antibacterials: drug interactions of clinical significance. Drug Saf 1995 Aug; 13(2): 105–22Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Gardner MJ, Coates PE, Hilligoss DM, et al. Lack of effect of azithromycin on the pharmacokinetics of theophylline in man. Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Congress of Chemotherapy; 1992 May 24-29; AthensGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Clauzel AM, Visier S, Michel FB. Efficacy and safety of azithromycine in lower respiratory tract infections [abstract]. Eur Respir J 1990 Sep; 3 Suppl. 10: 89Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Harris S, Hilligoss DM, Colangelo PM, et al. Azithromycin and terfenadine: lack of drug interaction. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 58: 310–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Rapeport WG, Dewland PM, Muirhead DC, et al. Lack of an interaction between azithromycin and carbamazepine [abstract]. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992 May; 33: 55 IPGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Mattila MJ, Vanakoski J, Idänpään-Heikkilä JJ. Azithromycin does not alter the effects of oral midazolam on human performance. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 47(1): 49–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Zimmermann T, Laufen H, Yeates RA. Influence of the antibiotics erythromycin and azithromycin on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam [abstract no. 777]. 7th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; 1995 Mar 26-30; Vienna, 151Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Ljutic D, Rumboldt Z. Possible interaction between azithromycin and cyclosporin: a case report. Nephron 1995 May; 70: 130Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Zithromax. In: Walker G, editor. ABPI Data Sheet Compendium 1994–95. London: Datapharm Publications Ltd., 1994: 1285–6Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Foulds G, Luke DR, Teng R, et al. Food does not affect the bioavailability of azithromycin tablets, sachet, or suspension. J Antimicrob Chemother. In pressGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Schentag JJ. Antibiotic treatment of acute otitis media in children: dosing considerations. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995; 14(4): S30–33Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Ball P, Tillotson G, Wilson R. Chemotherapy for chronic bronchitis: controversies. Presse Med 1995 Jan 21; 24: 189–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Place in therapy of the newer macrolides: clarithromycin and azithromycin. Drug Ther Perspect 1993 Jan 25; 1 1: 5-7Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Cook PJ, Honeybourne D. Clinical aspects of Chlamydia pneumoniae infection. Presse Med 1995 Feb 4; 24: 278–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Grayston JT. Infections caused by Chlamydia pneumoniae strain TWAR. Clin Infect Dis 1992 Nov; 15: 757–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Feldman JA, DeTullio PL. Medication noncompliance: an issue to consider in the drug selection process. Hosp Formul 1994 Mar; 29: 204–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Pfizer on Zithromax cost. Scrip Mag 1995 Jul 4 (2039): 23Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    American Thoracic Society. Guidelines for the initial management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: diagnosis, assessment of severity, and initial antimicrobial therapy. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993; 148: 1418–26Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Eron JJJ, Burkle W, Cohen MS. Managing pneumonia: defining the role of the new macrolide antibiotics. Hosp Formul 1994 Feb; 29: 122–36Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher J. Dunn
    • 1
  • Lee B. Barradell
    • 1
  1. 1.Adis International LimitedMairangi Bay, Auckland 10New Zealand

Personalised recommendations