학술논문

ApalcillinとCarbenicillinの慢性気道感染症に対する薬効比較試験成績 / COMPARATIVE CLINICAL STUDY BETWEEN APALCILLIN AND CARBENICILLIN AGAINST CHRONIC RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTIONS BY WELL-CONTROLLED STUDY
Document Type
Journal Article
Author
AKIRA IKEBEAKIRA ITOAKIRA SAITOAKIRA WATANABEATSUSHI SAITOATUSHI SAITOCHIAKI FUJIIDAISUKE MIZOGUCHIEIICHI YAMADAEIRO TSUBURAFUMIHIKO UBAFUMIO MIKIFUMIO NAGAHAMAFUSANOSUKE YAMASAKUFUYUHIKO HIGASHIHAJIMU TAKEDAHARUKO IWASAKIHIDEO IKEMOTOHIDEYUKI HASEGAWAHIROICHI TANIMOTOHIROMARO IWASAKIHIROSHI OKUBOHIROSHI SUZUKIHIROYUKI KOBAYASHIHISASHI ISHIKAWAHISASHI TAKIZUKAICHIRO NAKAYAMAIPPEI FUJIMORIJUNICHIRO TAKESHITAJUNKO MAKINOJUNZABURO KABEKAORU OYAMAKAORU SHIMADAKAZUFUTO FUKAYAKAZUYOSHI WATANABEKEIGO MAEHARAKEIICHI NAKAGAWAKEIMEI MASHIMOKEIZO MATSUMOTOKENICHI OKAYAMAKENTARO WATANABEKENZO SHIOTAKIHACHIRO SHIMIZUKINICHI IZUMIKAWAKIYOSHI KONNOKOHEI HARAKOHKICHI FUKUSHIMAKOJI YOSHIOKOTARO OIZUMIKUNIO IMADAKAKYOSHU GOMAKIO URIHARAMASAFUMI HAYASHIDAMASAMOTO NAKANOMASAO NAKATOMIMASARU KOYAMAMASARU NASUMASARU ONUMAMASATAKA KATSUMASATO NAKANOMASUMI TOMIZAWAMICHIAKI KAWANOMICHIHIDE KAWAIMICHINORI KOHNOMICHIYASU NAKANISHINATSUO NISHIZAWANOBUHIRO HORIUCHINOBUKI AOKINOBUO MAEKAWANOBUOKI MORIOSAMU KITAMOTOOSAMU SEKINEOTOHIKO KUNIIRINZO SOEJIMAROKUSHI OKARYOICHI MURAKIRYUICHIRO YAMAZAKIRYUSAKU SHIMIZUSABURO KITAURASAKAE KANSAKIMORI YAMAGUCHISHINGO ARAISHINJI MOTOJIMASHINJI OKUISHIRO KAWASHIMASHOICHI KAWAMURASHOICHIRO IRIMAJIRITAKASHI INAMATSUTAKEHIRO TSUJIMOTOTAKEHITO NAKABAYASHITAKESHI KIKUCHITATSUO SUZUKITOMOHIRO KAWANOTOSHIHIRO FUJIITOSHIYUKI YAMAMOTOTSUNEO TSUTSUMIYASUMICHI KATOYASUSHI UEDAYASUTOSHI SUZUKIYOSHICHIKA KANAIYOSHIHIKO TANOYOSHIHIRO UEDAYOSHIO UZUKAYOSHIRO SAWAEYUICHI KAGAMIYUKIO GOTOYURUKO OKAMOTO三木 文雄上田 泰上田 良弘中富 昌夫中山 一朗中川 圭一中林 武仁中西 通泰中野 昌人中野 正心今野 淳今高 国夫伊藤 章入交 昭一郎前原 敬吾前川 暢夫副島 林造加藤 康道勝 正孝北本 治北浦 三郎原 耕平可部 順三郎右馬 文彦吉雄 幸治呉 京修国井 乙彦堀内 信宏堤 恒雄塩田 憲三大久保 滉大山 馨大泉 耕太郎奥井 津二宇塚 良夫富沢 磨須美小山 優小林 宏行小沼 賢山作 房之輔山口 防人山崎 隆一郎山本 俊幸山田 栄一岡 六四岡山 謙一岡本 緩子岩崎 博円岩崎 温子島田 馨川合 馗英川島 士郎後藤 幸夫斎藤 厚斎藤 玲斎藤 篤本島 新治村木 良一東 冬彦松本 慶蔵林田 正文栗原 牧夫森 信興武田 元池本 秀雄池辺 璋沢江 義郎河村 正一河野 知弘河野 通律河野 通昭泉川 欣一深谷 一太清水 喜八郎清水 隆作渡辺 一功渡辺 健太郎渡辺 彰溝口 大輔滝塚 久志牧野 純子田野 吉彦真下 啓明石川 寿福島 孝吉稲松 孝思竹下 潤一郎荒井 信吾菅 栄菊地 武志藤井 俊宥藤井 千秋藤森 一平螺良 英郎西沢 夏生谷本 普一辻本 兵博那須 勝金井 豊親鈴木 寛鈴木 康稔鈴木 達夫鏡 雄一長浜 文雄長谷川 英之関根 理青木 信樹
Source
CHEMOTHERAPY. 1978, 26(6):762
Subject
Language
Japanese
ISSN
0009-3165
1884-5894
Abstract
For the purpose of comparison of the therapeutic effects and side effects between Apalcillin (APPC) and Carbenicillin (CBPC), a comparative clinical study was carried out in 142 patients with chronic respiratory tract infections at 31 institutions in Japan.Either of APPC or CBPC was assigned to each patient at random. Administration was performed by intravenous drip infusions for a fixed period of 14 days and the daily dosage was fixed at 2g (APPC) or 4 g (CBPC).A committee consisting of several physicians who had not been informed of the name of actually given drug, made a judgement on the severity, therapeutic results and presence or absence of side effects in each patient based on the detailed subjective and objective symptoms, laboratory findings and chest X-ray films. Subsequently, the key code for the drug administered to each patient was opened and a statistical analysis was carried out by a comparison between two groups (APPC group and CBPC group) with respect to background factors, clinical effectiveness, bacteriological effectiveness, degree of improvement and side effects.Out of 142 cases originally admitted to the trial, 16 cases were excluded bacause of failure to meet the initially established protocol and 126 cases (67 from APPC group and 59 from CBPC group) were used for the analysis of effectiveness while the analysis of side effects was done in 141 cases (75 from APPC group and 66 from CBPC group).It was indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding background factors except body weight, PaCO2 and ESR. Clinical effects of APPC were good in 40 cases, fair in 7 cases, poor in 19 cases and unknown in 1 case and those of CBPC were excellent in 3 cases, good in 32 cases, fair in 15 cases, poor in 7 cases and unknown in 2 cases. There was no statistically significant difference between the both groups concerning clinical effectiveness, bacteriological effectiveness and the degree of improvement. As to the incidence of side effects, no statistically significant difference was observed between the both groups.