학술논문

Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Cefotaxime and Cefazolin on Respiratory Tract Infection / 呼吸器感染症に対するCefotaximeとCefazolinの薬効比較試験
Document Type
Journal Article
Author
Akio AOYAGIAkio TACHIBANAAkira SAITOAkira UJIIEAtsushi SAITOAtsushi SHIMOMURAEiro TSUBURAFumihiko UBAFumio MIKIFumio NAGAHAMAFusanosuke YAMASAKUGen TAJIMAGenichi TANAKAHajimu TAKEDAHaruhiko TOKUOMIHarumi SHISHIDOHideo IKEMOTOHideo SASAKIHideyo NOGUCHIHirohiko NAGASAKAHiroichi TANIMOTOHiromi ASAKURAHiromi KATOHiromichi UMEDAHironobu IHARAHiroshi NAGANOHiroshi OKANOHiroshi OKUBOHiroyuki KOBAYASHIHisao KIMURAHisashi NAKAHATAIppei FUJIMORIIzumi HAYASHIJingoro SHIMADAJunzaburo KABEJutaro SHIMOMURAKaoru OKADAKaoru OYAMAKaoru SHIMADAKatsuhiko MATSUIKatsuhiro OKAMOTOKatsumasa TOKUNAGAKazue SADAMOTOKazufuto FUKAYAKazuhiko HAGANEKazuhiko ITOKazuki MIURAKazuo HORIEKazuo SASAKIKazuo TAKEBEKazuyoshi WATANABEKeigo MAEHARAKeiichi NAKAGAWAKeiji TAKAHASHIKeiko CHOKeimei MASHIMOKeisuke NISHIWAKIKeizo MATSUMOTOKenichi IMAMURAKenichi KIMURAKenji KUBOKenzo SHIOTAKinichi IZUMIKAWAKiyofumi ISHIKAWAKiyohito TAKAHASHIKiyoshi KONNOKiyoya IZUMIKo FUJIIKohei HARAKoichi WATANABEKoichiro NAKADAKosho YOSHIKAWAKosuke NAKAZAWAKotaro OIZUMIKoya SHIBAKozo MORIKuninori SUZUKIKunio KUDOMakoto FUKUIMakoto IMAOKAMasahisa OMORIMasahito KATOMasahito OKAYASUMasanaga TAKATOMasanori ADACHIMasanori MORISEMasao NAKATOMIMasaro KAJIMasaru NASUMasataka KATSUMasatoshi IDEMasayuki ANDOMasumi TOMIZAWAMichio YAMAKIDOMichiyasu NAKANISHIMikihiko KUDOMitsuaki YOSHIOKAMitsuko TAKAMURAMitsunobu AKASHIMitsuo NAKAMURAMitsuru IWAKURAMorikuni ABENoboru SHIMIZUNobuaki TSUZUKINobuharu OENobuki AOKINobuo MAEKAWANorio KIHARAOsamu KITAMOTOOsamu KURIMURAOsamu SEKINEOtohiko KUNIIRinzo SOEJIMARokushi OKARyoji OHASHIRyokichi TAKASUGIRyutaro KIUCHIRyuzo FUEKISaburo YANOSeiichi HONMASeiichi MURAKAMISetsuo KOBAYASHIShigechika KADOShigeru MIYANOShigeru NAGAOKAShinichi MATSUOShinichi MORINAGAShinji OKUIShinya YASUDAShiro KOSAKAShoji YASUIShoko NARITAShuichiro YOSHIDAShuzo SAKAISumio ARAISumio YAMAOKASusumu SUETSUGUTadashi MIYAHARATadashi MIYAZAWATadashi TAKIGAMITakafumi YANOTakamitsu KIDOTakashi ITOTakashi WATANABETakehisa YAMAJITakehito NAKAMURATakehumi KUNIEDATakekuni IWATATakeshi MASHIMATamotsu TAKISHIMATatsuo SUZUKITeruo KATAYAMATetsuaki INOKUCHITomohiro KANAZAWAToshihiko YOSHIGAToshikatsu KATOToshio FUJIOKAToshio HOJYOToshiro ODAToshiyuki MAEDAToshiyuki YAMAMOTOTsukasa YOSHIDATsuneo MATSUBARATsuneo TSUTSUMITsunetoshi KOTEDAYasuhiro KAWABEYasuko YUASAYasumichi KATOYasuo MATSUOKAYasuo NOMURAYasushi YAMADAYasutoshi SUZUKIYasutsugu FUKUDAYoichiro ICHIKAWAYoji SUZUYAMAYomei HIRAGAYoshihiko MATSUDAYoshihiko TANOYoshihiro KUMASAKAYoshihiro TAKISHITAYoshihiro UEDAYoshimaru USUDAYoshio HOSHIHARAYoshio KINOSHITAYoshio KOBAYASHIYoshioki NIWAYoshiro SAWAEYoshiteru SHIGENOYoshito NIKIYukio NISHIMOTOYuruko OKAMOTO三木 文雄三浦 一樹上田 良弘下村 寿太郎下村 惇中富 昌夫中川 圭一中村 光男中村 武仁中沢 浩亮中田 紘一郎中畑 久中西 通泰丹羽 義置久保 研二二木 芳人井原 裕宣井手 政利今岡 誠今村 憲市今野 淳伊藤 和彦伊藤 隆佐々木 和夫佐々木 英夫前原 敬吾前川 暢夫前田 敏行副島 林造加地 正郎加藤 年克加藤 康道加藤 弘已加藤 政仁勝 正孝北本 治北条 敏夫原 耕平古川 公章可部 順三郎右馬 文彦吉岡 光明吉田 司吉田 秀一郎国井 乙彦国枝 武文城戸 啓光堀江 和夫堤 恒雄塩田 憲三大久保 滉大山 馨大森 雅久大橋 亮二大江 宣春大泉 耕太郎奥井 津二守永 真一安井 昭二安田 真也安藤 正幸安達 正則宍戸 春美定本 和江宮原 正宮沢 正宮野 滋富沢 磨須美小坂 志朗小林 宏行小林 節雄小林 芳夫小田 敏郎山作 房之輔山岡 澄夫山木戸 道郎山本 俊幸山田 泰史山路 武久岡 六四岡安 大仁岡本 勝博岡本 緩子岡田 薫岡野 弘岩倉 盈岩田 猛邦島田 馨嶋田 甚五郎川部 汎康工藤 国夫工藤 幹彦市川 洋一郎平賀 洋明張 景弘徳永 勝正徳臣 晴比古成田 祥耕斉藤 玲斉藤 篤明石 光伸星原 芳雄朝倉 裕美木下 与四男木内 隆太郎木原 令夫木村 久男木村 健一末次 勸本間 誠一村上 誠一松井 克彦松原 恒雄松尾 信一松岡 康夫松本 慶蔵松田 美彦林 泉柴 孝也栗村 統梅田 博道森 幸三森瀬 雅典武田 元武部 和夫氏家 昭永坂 博彦池本 秀雄沢江 義郎泉 清弥泉川 欣一深谷 一太清水 昇渡辺 一功渡辺 講一渡辺 隆湯浅 保子滝上 正滝下 佳寛滝島 任熊坂 義裕片山 鏡男猪口 哲彰田中 元一田島 玄田野 吉彦真下 啓明真嶋 武矢野 三郎矢野 敬文石川 清文福井 信福田 安嗣立花 昭生笛木 隆三籠手田 恒敏続木 信明羽金 和彦芳賀 敏彦荒井 澄夫薄田 芳丸藤井 皓藤岡 利生藤森 一平螺良 英郎西本 幸男西脇 敬祐谷本 普一賀戸 重充那須 勝酒井 秀造重野 芳輝野口 英世野村 靖郎金沢 知博鈴山 洋司鈴木 国功鈴木 康稔鈴木 達夫長岡 滋長浜 文夫長野 準関根 理阿部 守邦青木 信樹青柳 昭雄高杉 良吉高村 光子高橋 敬治高橋 清仁高頭 正長
Source
感染症学雑誌 / Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1980, 54(9):471
Subject
Cefazolin
Cefotaxime
Respiratory Tract Infection
Well-controlled-comparative-study
Language
Japanese
ISSN
0387-5911
1884-569X
Abstract
The clinical efficacy and safety of CTX for respiratory infections were objectively studied with CEZ as the control. In principle, 2 g/day of CTX and 4 g/day of CEZ were intravenously dripinfused for 14 days.1. The rates of effectiveness for all the cases were 69.9% for CTX and 64.5% for CEZ, those for pneumonia were 70.1 % for CTX and 69.9% for CEZ, those for bacterial pneumonia were 75.9% for CTX and 75.4% for CEZ and those for the cases without pneumonia were 69.9% for CTX and 75.4 for CEZ. In the stratified analysis, the rates of effectiveness of CTX were significantly higher than those of CEZ in the cases having no underlying diseases or complications, in all the severe cases and in the cases with pneumonia.2. The rates of effectiveness evaluated by the investigators were 78.8% for CTX and 72.8% for CEZ when all the cases were considered, 82.2% for CTX and 76.0% for CEZ in pneumonia, 87.9% for CTX and 82.8% for CEZ in bacterial pneumonia and 73.2% for CTX and 66.0% for CEZ in the cases without pneumonia. CTX displayed significantly higher rates of effectiveness than CEZ in all the cases (U-test).3. CTX had generally higher rates of improvement than CEZ in individual symptoms, clinical findings and laboratory test results. Significant improvements were observed in 6 cases for CTX and in 3 cases for CEZ.4. As for bacteriological effects, CTX showed a disappearance rate of 50.0% in 2 strains of gram positive bacteria and that of 80.0% in 31 strains of gram-negative bacteria, while the corresponding rates for CEZ were 100% in 3 strains of gram-positive bacteria and 76.7% in gram-negative bacteria. Although replacement of bacteria by Pseudomonas was observed in 2 cases with CEZ, there were no such cases with CTX.5. The incidence of side effects was 3.5% for CTX and 4.1% for CEZ. Abnormal laboratory results were observed at the rate of 24.9% for CTX and 23.6% for CEZ. Side effects were all mild, including eruption and an increase in the level of transaminase, and there were no significant differences between CTX and CEZ.6. Compared with CEZ, CTX showed generally superior values in the evaluation of usefulness, but there were no, significant differences between the two.It may be concluded from these results that 2 g/day of CTX produced effects on respiratory infections which were equal to or better than the effects of CEZ, and that CTX had significantly higher rates of effectiveness than CEZ, especially in severe cases. CTX was relatively free from side effects and is considered to be useful for respiratory infections, especially for severe cases.