Abstract
Macrolides are widely used antibiotics in a variety of infections, especially community-aquired. The clinical success of macrolides is due to their activity against classical causative agents, intracellular pathogens, and some protozoa. Of great importance is their good tolerability profile, which allows their use in some «problem» categories of patients. Special attention should be paid to the representatives of 16-membered macrolides, which have certain properties making them different from other antibiotics of this class. One of them is midecamycin, that is approved for the treatment of respiratory tract infections, including diphtheria and whooping cough, skin and soft tissues infections, and genitourinary tract infections. In this review a short pharmacological description of midecamycin is presented.
-
1.
Страчунский Л.С., Козлов С.Н. Макролиды в современной клинической практике. Смоленск: Русич; 1998.
-
2.
Omura S., editor. Macrolide Antibiotics. 2nd edition. Academic Press; 2002.
-
3.
Schonfeld W., Kirst H.A., editors. Macrolide Antibiotics. Birkhauser Verlag; 2002.
-
4.
Kumazawa J., Yagisawa M. The history of antibiotics: The Japanese story. J Infect Chemother 2002; 8:125-33.
-
5.
Di Giambattista M., Nyssen E., Engelborghs Y., et al. Kinetics of binding of macrolides, lincosamides and synergimycins to ribosomes. J Biol Med 1987; 262:8591-7.
-
6.
Bryskier A., Butzler J.-P. Macrolides. In: Antibiotic and Chemotherapy. Finch R.G., et al.: editors. Churchill Livingstone, 2003. P. 310-25.
-
7.
Mazzariol A., Zuliani J., Cornaglia G. Evaluation of 16- membered macrolides on Italian Streptococcus pyogenes isolates with different levels of sensitivity to erythromycin. Proceedings of 12th ECCMID, 21-24 April 2002, Milan, Italy. Abstr. P478.
-
8.
Козлов Р.С., Кречикова О.И., Сивая О.В. и соавт. Антимикробная резистентность Streptococcus pneumoniae в России: результаты проспективного многоцентрового исследования (фаза А проекта ПеГАС-I). Клин микробиол антимикроб химиотер 2002; 4:267-77.
-
9.
Pereyre S., de Barbeyrac B., Renaudin H., et al. In vitro activity of midecamycin diacetate against Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 47:240-1.
-
10.
Ghosh G., Felmingham D., Ridgway G.L. Post-antibiotic effect studies with midecamycin acetate. In: Recent Advances in Chemotherapy. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Chemotherapy. Berlin, 1991: 2466-2467.
-
11.
Hamilton-Miller J.M.Т., Shach S. Post-antibiotic effects of miocamycin, roxithromycin and erythromycin on Gram-positive cocci. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1993; 2:105-9.
-
12.
Kamimiya S., Weisblum B. Induction of ermCV by 16- memberedring macrolide antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41:530-4.
-
13.
Brisson-Noel A., Trieu-Cuot P., Courvalin P. Mechanism of action of spiramycin and other macrolides. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 22(Suppl. B):13-23.
-
14.
Chabbert Y.A. Early studies on in vitro and experimental activity of spiramycin: a review. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 22(Suppl. B):1-11.
-
15.
Nakajima Y. Mechanisms of bacterial resistance to macrolide antibiotics. J Infect Chemother 1999; 5:61-74.
-
16.
Bryskier A., Butzler J.P. Macrolides. In: Antibiotic and chemotherapy: anti-infective agents and their use in therapy. O’Grady E., Lambert H.P., Finch R.G., Greenwood D. (Eds.). Churcill Livingstone. New York, etc., 1997: 377-393.
-
17.
Periti P., Mazzei Т., Mini E., et al. Clinical pharmacokinetic properties of the macrolide antibiotics. Effects of age and various pathophysiological states (part I). Clin Pharmacokinet 1989; 16:193-214.
-
18.
Howard J.E., Nelson J.D., Clahsen J., et al. Otitis media of infancy and early childhood. Am J Dis Child 1976; 130:965-70.
-
19.
Neu H.C. Bacterial resistance to other agents. In: Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine. Lorian V. (Ed.). 3rd ed. Baltimore etc., 1991: 714-722.
-
20.
Miglioli P.A., Pivetta P., Orlando R., et al. Pharmacokinetics of miocamycin, in patients with liver cirrhosis. Chemother 1989; 35:330-2.
-
21.
Agostoni C., Giovannini M., Fraschini F., et al. Comparison of miocamycin versus amoxycillin in lower respiratory tract infections in children. Clinical responce and effect on natural killer activity. J Int Med Res 1988; 16:305-11.
-
22.
Страчунский Л.С., Жаркова Л.П., Авдеева Т.Г. и соавт. Первое в России контролируемое сравнительное исследование антибиотиков у детей: макропен vs. эритромицин. Педиатрия 1995; 4:123-8.
-
23.
Sifrim D., Janssens J., Vantrappen G. Effect of midecamycin acetate on gastrointestinal motility in humans. Int J Clin Pharm 1992; 12:71-9.
-
24.
Periti P., Mazzei T., Mini E., et al. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions of macrolides. Clin Pharmacokinet 1992; 23:106-31.
-
25.
Ivankovic D. Clinical trial on midecamycin: statistical analysis. Midecamycin: data on file. KRKA.
-
26.
Marchisio P., Calanchi A., Onorato J., et al. Studio multicentrico sulla faringotonsillite in eta pediatrica. Riv Inf Ped 1989; 4:239-49.
-
27.
Ruggiero G., Utili R., Adinolfi L.E., et al. Clinical efficacy of dirithromycin versus miocamycin in tonsillopharyngitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31 (Suppl C):103-9.
-
28.
Barrios Montes J.M., Martin Escobar E. Protocol study and results of the use of midecamycin for bacterial infections of the upper respiratory tract. An Otorrinolaringol Ibero Am 1991;18:29-36.
-
29.
Baba S. Double blind comparison of roxithromycin and midecamycin acetate in the treatment of suppurative otitis media. In: The 16th International Congress of Chemotherapy. Jerusalem, 1989 (abstr.).
-
30.
Crose G.F., Mazzei L., Zechini F., et al. Terapia con miocamicina della polmonite da Legionella pneumophila: tre casi clinici. Ann Inst Forlanini 1987; 7:201-12.
-
31.
Sacristan J.A., Elviro J., Garcia de Lomas J., et al. Doubleblind clinical trial comparing 5 days of dirithromycin versus 7 days of diacetylmidecamycin in acute bronchitis and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 1997; 15:357-60.
-
32.
Soejima R, Niki Y, Hino J, et al. Double-blind comparative study of roxithromycin (RU 28965) and midecamycin acetate (MOM) in the treatment of pneumonia. Kansenshogaku Zasshi 1989; 63:501-29.
-
33.
Дзюблик А.Я., Мухин А.А., Недлинская Н.Н., и соавт. Сравнительная эффективность мидекамицина и бензилпенициллина в лечении больных с внебольничной пневмонией с нетяжелым течением. Украинский химиотерапевтический журнал 2000; 5:43-5.
-
34.
Furneri P.M., Roccasalva L., Fallica L., et al. Efficacy of miocamycin in the therapy of non-specific genital infections: non-gonococcal urethritis and acute urethral syndrome. Int J Pharm Res 1988; 8:111-6.
-
35.
Signorelli C., Boni P., Galli M.G. Uso della miocamicina nella terapia delle infezioni cervicali da Chlamydia trachomatis. Clin Terap 1988; 124:383-6.
-
36.
Melloni D., Cacciatore M., Curti Giardina M., et al. Studio clinico comparativo di efficacia e di tollerabilita fra dossiciclina e miocamicina in pazienti con uretroprostatite da Chlamydia trachomatis. Min Urol Nefrol 1987; 39:355-8.
-
37.
Царев В.Н., Дмитриева Л.А., Филатова Н.А., соавт. Опыт применения рулида, сумамеда и макропена в комплексном лечении генерализованного пародонтита в стадии обострения. Стоматология 1997; 76:4-8.
-
38.
Available from http://www.regmed.ru/.