Kansenshogaku Zasshi
Online ISSN : 1884-569X
Print ISSN : 0387-5911
ISSN-L : 0387-5911
A Well-Contorolled Comparative Study on Ceftriaxone with Cefotaxime in Respiratory Tract Infections
Hiroyuki KOBAYASHI, Kenji TAKAMURA, Hiroshi OSHITANI, Tomoko NIHEI, Akira SAITO, Masumi TOMIZAWA, Ichiro NAKAYAMA, Kiyofumi ISHIKAWA, Morikuni ABE, Yoshihiko KURODA, Hiroyuki KUMANO, Yoshio KURIHARA, Tuyoshi KIKUIRI, Shuzaburo FUKUYAMA, Fumio NAGAHAMA, Shinya YASUDA, Akira SUZUKI, Yomei HIRAGA, Mitsuharu OGI, Akihiko KUZE, Hiroshi KON, Katsuo SUZUKI, Rensuke KURODA, Jutaro SHIMOMURA, Kazuo TAKEBE, Seiichi MURAKAMI, Morio SAGARA, Masahiro TSUTSUI, Shunichi MAEDA, Seiichi OHHIRA, Mitsuo MASUDA, Yuzo MORI, Kazuo SASAKI, Mitsuo SUZUKI, Makoto NAKAZONO, Kiyohito TAKAHASHI, Hisashi NAKAHATA, Shirou KOSAKA, Masao TAMURA, Takashi ITO, Takehisa MURAKAMI, Kohtaro ITAKURA, Tamotsu TAKISHIMA, Shiroh IDA, Kiyoshi KONNO, Kikuo ONUMA, Kotaro OIZUMI, Masako SASAKI, Akira WATANABE, Seiichi AONUMA, Reiko SASAKI, Izumi HAYASHI, Masataka KATSU, Keimei MASHIMO, Yoshiji YAMANE, Sumio YAMAOKA, Atsushi SAITO, Jingoro SHIMADA, Koya SHIBA, Takehisa YAMAJI, Toshio HOJO, Masanobu KAJI, Tadashi MIYAHARA, Hideo IKEMOTO, Kazuyoshi WATANABE, Keiichi NAKAGAWA, Kentaro WATANABE, Masaru KOYAMA, Fukuo IJIMA, Kaoru SHIMADA, Takashi INAMATSU, Kyoko URAYAMA, Hiroichi TANIMOTO, Kunihiko YOSHIMURA, Tatsuo NAKATANI, Naohiko CHONABAYASHI, Yoshitaka NAKAMORI, Koichiro NAKATA, Junzaburo KABE, Hiroyoshi ISHIBASHI, Yasuyuki SANO, Ippei FUJIMORI, Yoshio KOBAYASHI, Akio ONAKA, Kazufuto FUKAYA, Shigeki ODAGIRI, Kouu MUROHASHI, Hirotada IKEDA, Kaneo SUZUKI, Tamotsu KANEKO, Toshihiko TAKEUCHI, Toshiyuki YAMAMOTO, Masahito KATO, Kouichi WADA, Masaaki ARAKAWA, Osamu SEKINE, Yoshimaru USUDA, Nobuki AOKI, Fusanosuke YAMASAKU, Yasutoshi SUZUKI, Kaoru OYAMA, Nobuo MAEKAWA, Michiyasu NAKANISHI, Yujiro SUZUKI, Keijyu LEE, Hiroshi OKUBO, Yoshihiro UEDA, Yuruko OKAMOTO, Keigo MAEHARA, Seibun YONEZU, Yube IIDA, Fumio MIKI, Yoshiyasu IKUNO, Eiji INOUE, Minoru YOSHIYAMA, Tetsuto MURATA, Shinichi TANIZAWA, Kazuo SAKAMOTO, Rinzo SOEJIMA, Yoshito NIKI, Osamu KURIMURA, Hideo SASAKI, Hirofumi FUKUHARA, Eiro TSUBURA, Masakazu TAMURA, Masaru NAKAGAWA, Yoshiro SAWAE, Kaoru OKADA, Yukio KUMAGAI, Hitoshi NAGANO, Chiharu KUBO, Takashi ITOGA, Masaru NASU, Jun GOTO, Yoichiro GOTO, Takayoshi TASHIRO, Kohei HARA, Atsushi SAITO, Keizo YAMAGUCHI, Yoji SUZUYAMA, Yoshiteru SHIGENO, Toshiyuki OYE, Hiromaru IWASAKI, Toshiaki HAYASHI, Keizo MATSUMOTO, Yukio NOGUCHI, Mikio TAGUCHI
Author information
Keywords: Respiratory tract infections, comparative study, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1986 Volume 60 Issue 2 Pages 102-124

Details
Download PDF (2533K)
Download citation RIS

(compatible with EndNote, Reference Manager, ProCite, RefWorks)

BIB TEX

(compatible with BibDesk, LaTeX)

Text
How to download citation
Contact us
Abstract

For the purpose of evaluating the efficacy, safety and usefulness of ceftriaxone (CTRX), a cephem antibiotic, in respiratory tract infections, a well-controlled comparative study was carried out with cefotaxime (CTX) for a reference.
One (1) gm of either CTRX or CTX was administered by drip infusion twice a day for 7 to 14 days in principle into patients with chronic bronchitis and diffuse panbronchiolitis aggravated with infections, chronic respiratory diseases accompanied with infections in the lower respiratory tract like bronchiectasis, bronchial asthma, pulmonary emphysema, pulmonary fibrosis, obsolete pulmonary tuberculosis, lung cancer, etc. and bacterial pneumonia.
Results were as follows:
1) Clinical efficacy: The efficacy rate was 81%(100/124) with CTRX and 74%(94/127) with CTX, with no statistically significant difference between the two drugs. The efficacy rate in the moderately infected patients was 81%(54/67) with CTRX and 62%(37/60) with CTX, CTRX being significantly superior to CTX.If cases infected with P. aerugirrosa were excluded, CTRX was higher in efficacy than CTX.
2) Bacteriological effects: The bacterial eradication occurred in 35 patients out of 44 (80%) with CTRX and in 42 out of 54 (78%) with CTX, with no statistically significant difference. There was no significant difference in efficacy between the two, whether according to strains of isolates or types of infections (single or mixed).
3) Adverse reactions: The incidence of adverse reactions was 10.5%(14/133) to CTRX and 6.3%(9/143) to CTX, no statistically significant difference being noticed. The incidence of skin rash was significantly higher with CTRX. In the clinical laboratory test, abnormal signs were observed in 37 out of 130 (28.5%) with CTRX and in 36 out of 137 (26.3%) with CTX, no significant difference being detected.
4) Usefulness: CTRX was evaluated to be very useful in 3 out of 133, useful in 94, slightly useful in 13 and useless in 20. There were 3 unevaluable cases.CTX was very useful in 2 out of 143, useful in 90, slightly useful in 14 and useless in 28. Evaluation was impossible in 9 cases.There was no significant difference in usefulness between CTRX and CTX.
5) Conclusion: From the above, CTRX was considered to be clinically very useful for the treatment of infections of the lower respiratory tract like chronic respiratory tract infections and pneumonia.

Content from these authors
© The Japansese Association for Infectious Diseases
Previous article Next article
Favorites & Alerts

Recently viewed articles
Predecessor

Journal of the Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases

Share this page
feedback
 Top