학술논문
Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Lenampicillin and Bacampicillin on Bacterial Pneumonia by Double Blind Method / 細菌性肺炎を対象としたLenampicillin (KBT-1585) とBacampicillinの薬効比較試験成績
Document Type
Journal Article
Author
Akimitsu KAMITSUNA; Akio ONAKA; Akira ITO; Akira SAITO; Akira UJIIE; Atsushi AJISAWA; Atsushi SAITO; Chizuru ITO; Eiji INOUE; Eiro TSUBURA; Etsuo SENOO; Fukuo IIJIMA; Fumio MATSUMOTO; Fumio MIKI; Fusanosuke YAMASAKU; Fuyuhiko HIGASHI; Hajimu TAKEDA; Hayato MIYAJI; Hideaki KUROKI; Hidekazu HANAKI; Hideki NISHIYAMA; Hideo IKEMOTO; Hiroaki NAOE; Hiroharu OGIHARA; Hirohiko NAGASAKA; Hiroichi TANIMOTO; Hiroshi OKUBO; Hiroshi OSHITANI; Hirotada IKEDA; Hiroyoshi ISHIBASHI; Hiroyuki KOBAYASHI; Hiroyuki TSUJINO; Hirozumi SAKAI; Ichiro NAKAYAMA; Ikuji USAMI; Ippei FUJIMORI; Izumi HAYASHI; Jun GOTO; Junzaburo KABE; Kaoru OKADA; Kaoru OYAMA; Kaoru SHIMADA; Katsumasa TOKUNAGA; Kazufuto FUKAYA; Kazuhiro OKUNO; Kazumasa NOUMI; Kazumine KOBARI; Kazuo SAKAMOTO; Kazuo SASAKI; Kazuo SATO; Kazuo TAKEBE; Kazuyoshi WATANABE; Keigo MAEHARA; Keimei MASHIMO; Keinosuke NOSE; Keizo MATSUMOTO; Keizo YAMAGUCHI; Ken-ichi HOSOYA; Kenji HASEGAWA; Kenji TAKAMATSU; Kenji TANI; Kentaro WATANABE; Kiyoshi KONNO; Kiyoshi SHIMA; Kiyoshi ZAYASU; Kohei HARA; Koichi WADA; Kosaku NAGAI; Kotaro OIZUMI; Kou MUROHASHI; Kunihiko YOSHIMURA; Kyoko URAYAMA; Masahito KATO; Masakazu TAMURA; Masao NAKATOMI; Masaru KOYAMA; Masaru NASU; Masataka KATSU; Masato HAYASHI; Masayoshi SAWAKI; Masayuki ANDO; Masumi TOMIZAWA; Michio YAMAKIDO; Michiyasu NAKANISHI; Mineharu SUGIMOTO; Minoru YOSIYAMA; Mitsuo MASUDA; Naohiko CHONABAYASI; Naohiko TERAO; Naoto RIKITOMI; Nobuki AOKI; Nobuo MAEKAWA; Osamu KURIMURA; Osamu SEKINE; Osamu YAJIMA; Riichiro MIKAMI; Rinzo SOEJIMA; Rokushi OKA; Sadanobu HIGUCHI; Seiichi AONUMA; Seiichi MURAKAMI; Shigeki ODAGIRI; Shigekiyo NAKANISHI; Shigeru TAMAKI; Shin-ichi TANIZAWA; Shin-ichiro WATANABE; Syuji CHIBA; Tadashi MASUDA; Tadashi MIYAHARA; Tadashi NAKAYAMA; Takao OKUBO; Takashi INAMATSU; Takashi ITOGA; Takayoshi TASHIRO; Takayoshi YAMAMOTO; Takeshi KAWAI; Takeshi OSONOI; Tatsuo NAKATANI; Teruo HASUIKE; Tetsuji KATAYAMA; Tetsuto MURATA; Tomoko KABASAWA; Toshihiko KAMEI; Toshihiko TAKEUCHI; Toshikazu MAEDA; Toshio SEKIMOTO; Toshiyuki YAMAMOTO; Tsukasa YOSHIDA; Tsuyoshi ITO; Tsuyoshi MAGATAKE; Yasuo YAMADA; Yasushi NAKAMURA; Yasutaku SHIBATA; Yasutoshi SUZUKI; Yasutsugu FUKUDA; Yasuyuki SANO; Yoichiro GOTO; Yoji SUZUYAMA; Yoshihiro UEDA; Yoshihito NIKI; Yoshio KOBAYASHI; Yoshiro ARAKI; Yoshiro SAWAE; Yoshiteru SHIGENO; Yosiyasu IKUNO; Yube IIDA; Yuji HIGUCHI; Yukio NISHIMOTO; Yumiko MURAYAMA; Yuruko OKAMOTO; 三上 理一郎; 三木 文雄; 上田 良弘; 上綱 昭光; 中富 昌夫; 中山 一朗; 中山 正; 中村 靖; 中西 通泰; 中西 重清; 中谷 龍王; 亀井 俊彦; 二木 芳人; 井上 英二; 今野 淳; 伊藤 剛; 伊藤 千鶴; 伊藤 章; 佐々木 和雄; 佐藤 和男; 佐野 靖之; 前原 敬悟; 前川 暢夫; 前田 俊一; 副島 林造; 力富 直人; 加藤 政仁; 勝 正孝; 千葉 修二; 原 耕平; 可部 順三郎; 吉村 邦彦; 吉田 司; 味澤 篤; 和田 光一; 坂元 一夫; 増田 光男; 増田 忠司; 大久保 滉; 大久保 隆男; 大山 馨; 大泉 耕太郎; 奥野 一祐; 妹尾 悦雄; 宇佐美 郁治; 安藤 正幸; 室橋 光宇; 宮原 正; 宮地 勇人; 富沢 磨須美; 寺尾 直彦; 小山 優; 小張 一峰; 小林 宏行; 小林 芳夫; 小田切 繁樹; 尾仲 章男; 山作 房之輔; 山口 恵三; 山木戸 道郎; 山本 俊幸; 山本 孝吉; 山田 保夫; 岡 六四; 岡本 緩子; 岡田 薫; 島田 馨; 座安 清; 後藤 純; 後藤 陽一郎; 徳永 勝正; 志摩 清; 押谷 浩; 斉藤 厚; 斉藤 玲; 斉藤 篤; 杉本 峯晴; 村上 誠一; 村山 由美子; 村田 哲人; 東 冬彦; 松本 慶蔵; 松本 文夫; 林 泉; 林 雅人; 柴田 安宅; 栗村 統; 樋口 定信; 樋口 祐次; 武内 俊彦; 武田 元; 武部 和夫; 氏家 昭; 永坂 博彦; 永武 毅; 池本 秀雄; 池田 大忠; 河合 健; 浦山 京子; 深谷 一太; 渡辺 一功; 渡辺 健太郎; 渡部 紳一郎; 澤木 政好; 澤江 義郎; 片山 哲二; 玉木 重; 生野 善康; 田代 隆良; 田村 正和; 直江 弘昭; 真下 啓明; 矢嶋 敢; 石橋 弘義; 福田 安嗣; 稲松 孝思; 糸賀 敬; 細谷 賢一; 能勢 圭之助; 能美 一政; 花木 英和; 荒木 淑郎; 荻原 宏治; 葭山 稔; 蒲沢 知子; 蓮地 照夫; 藤森 一平; 蝶名林 直彦; 螺良 英郎; 西山 秀樹; 西本 幸男; 谷 憲治; 谷本 普一; 谷澤 伸一; 辻野 博之; 遅野井 健; 那須 勝; 酒井 宏純; 重野 芳輝; 鈴山 洋司; 鈴木 康稔; 長井 弘策; 長谷川 健司; 関本 敏雄; 関根 理; 青木 信樹; 青沼 清一; 飯島 福生; 飯田 夕; 高松 健次; 黒木 秀明
Source
感染症学雑誌 / Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1985, 59(6):605
Subject
Language
Japanese
ISSN
0387-5911
1884-569X
1884-569X
Abstract
The clinical efficacy and safety of Lenamicillin (KBT-1585, LAPC) were compared with those of Bacampicillin (BAPC) as the control drug in patients with bacterial pneumonia by double blind study.Patients over 16 years old with apparent clinical signs and symptoms of pneumonia were administered LAPC (at a daily dose of 1 g) or BAPC (at a daily dose of 1 g) orally for 14 days in principle. Then the clinical and bacteriological efficacy, improvement in symptoms, side effects, abnormal changes in laboratory findings, and utility were assessed.After excluding the patients which did not fit the protocol from the total 209 patients admitted to the study, clinical efficacy, side effects and abnormal changes in laboratory findings were analyzed statistically in 187 patients, in 199 and in 193 patients respectively.Basides, clinical efficacy was analyzed in the patients with bacterial pneumonia which were completely adapted to the protocol and also in the total patients including those with non-bacterial pneumonia and other respiratory tract infections.1) On the basis of committee judgement, the clinical efficacy rate in the patients with bacterial pneumonia was 86.9% for the LAPC group and 86.7% for the BAPC group, respectively. As for the total cases, the rate was 80.2% for the LAPC group and 85.4% for the BAPC group, respectively.In both analyses, no significant differences were found between the two groups.2) According to the judgement by doctors in charge, the clinical efficacy rate in the patients with bacterial pneumonia was 90.0% for the LAPC group and 84.0% for the BAPC group, respectively.As for the total cases, the efficacy rate was 81.6% for the LAPC group and 81.7% for the BAPC group, respectively.In both analyses, there were no significant differences between the two groups.3) As for the bacteriological efficacy, there was no significant difference between the two groups.4) The incidence of side effects was 4.1% in the LAPC group and 7.8% in the BAPC group, respectively. The incidence of the abnormal changes in laboratory findigs was 19.4% for the LAPC group and 22.0% for the BAPC group, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups.5) The utility rate in the patients with bacterial pneumonia judged by the committee was 86.9% for the LAPC group and 80.0% for the BAPC group, respectively. The rate in the total cases was 80.2% for the LAPC group and 79.2% for the BAPC group. No significant differences between the two groups were noted. In the utility rate judged by doctors in charge, no significant difference was found between the two groups, too.As described above, any significant differences were found between LAPC (at a daily dose of 1 g) and BAPC (at a daily dose of 1 g) neither in the efficacy rates nor in their safety. From these results, LAPC as well as BAPC are considered to be highly useful antibacterial agents for the treatment of respiratory tract infections.