학술논문

Comparative Study of Ciprofloxacin (BAY o 9867) and Pipemidic Acid in the Treatment for Suppurative Otitis Media / 化膿性中耳炎に対するCiprofloxadn (BAYo9867) とPipemidicacidの薬効比較試験
Document Type
Journal Article
Author
Akimasa NAKAMURAAkira IIOAkiteru YUMISAKIAtsushi SHINKAWADaisuke CHIKUIEEriko TABUCHIEriko TOMOMATSUEtsuro OBATAFumikazu MIZUKOSHIGoro MOGIHajime MAEDAHaruhiro HAYASHIHaruhisa HORIKAWAHaruji KINOSHITAHaruo ITOHideharu ARUGAHideki KIDAHideki WADAHirofumi MATSUYAMAHiromitsu TAMAKIHirosato MIYAKEHiroshi SAIKAHiroshi WATANABEHitoshi OGINOIchiro MORIYAMAIkuo OHNOJun HONDOJun MORIMOTOJunichi MATSUKAWAJunichiro SHIMADAJunko ISHIIKaoru SOYANOKazuaki OGAWAKazue UENOKei OGAWAKeiichi DATEKen MUKAIKenji MURANOKenji SUZUKIKenji WADAKoichi SHIBUIKoji YAJINKozo FUKAMIZUKunihiko SAKAMOTOMakoto HASHIMOTOMakoto SAKAIMamoru TSUDAMasahiro HIRAKAWAMasahiro IIDAMasakaze NAKATAMasao TSUKIYAMAMasaru OHYAMAMasayoshi OZAKIMasayoshi TACHIBANAMashiko ANDOMasuhiro NODAMichinori KUROKAWAMikiko TAKAYAMAMinoru ISHIDAMitsuaki INAGAKIMitsuyoshi NAKAJIMAMiwa HYUGAMutsumi NAKAYAMANaozo TAYANobuharu TAGASHIRANobukazu TADAKINobuyuki KOMATSUOsamu MIZUKOSHIRyoto OHYARyuji KATAOKARyuji KIYOTASaburo MIMAKISatoru TAKENOUCHOSatoshi OHNOShigeaki SAITOShigeru FURUTAShigeru MIYOSHIShimei KANShinichi OKUMURAShinji KATOShoji SAITOShozo KAWAMURAShubun TAKEBAYASHIShunkichi BABATadashi AKITAYATakashi KAWAITakashi MATSUITakatsugu ITABASHITakeshi MARUOTakeshige NISHIMURATakuo MAEYAMATetsuo ISHIITomohiro YASUNOToru MATSUNAGATsutomu HATANOTsuyoshi TAKANOYasuji INOUEYasuo HARADAYoshiaki HIRASUGIYoshito MORIYoshiyuki TAMURAYuichi KURONOYuko NINOMIYAYuriko SUITSUYutaka FUJIMAKIYuzuru MURAKAMI三好 茂三宅 浩郷三牧 三郎上野 一恵中山 むつみ中島 光好中村 明正中田 将風丸尾 猛二宮 優子井上 靖二伊藤 晴夫伊達 敬一前山 拓夫前田 一加藤 眞二原田 康夫友松 えり子古田 茂只木 信和向井 研和田 健二和田 秀毅坂井 真坂本 邦彦堀川 治久夜陣 紘治大山 勝大矢 良人大野 聖大野 郁夫奥村 新一安藤 真姿子安野 友博小川 和昭小川 敬小幡 悦朗小松 信行尾崎 正義島田 純一郎平川 勝洋平杉 嘉昭弓崎 明輝征矢野 薫斎藤 彰治斎藤 成明新川 敦日向 美和月山 昌夫有賀 秀治木下 治二本堂 潤村上 譲村野 健二松井 隆史松山 博文松川 純一松永 亨板橋 隆嗣林 治博森 慶人森山 一郎森本 純橋本 真実橘正 芳水津 百合子水越 文和水越 治河合 窄河村 正三波多野 努津田 守深水 浩三清田 隆二渋井 弘一渡辺 洋片岡 隆嗣玉置 弘光田村 嘉之田淵 えり子田矢 直三田頭 宣治石井 哲夫石井 純子石田 稔秋田谷 直稲垣 光昭竹之内 智竹林 脩文築家 大介簡 志明茂木 五郎荻野 仁藤巻 豊西村 武重貴田 秀樹野田 益弘鈴木 賢二雑賀 宏飯尾 明飯田 政弘馬場 俊吉高山 幹子高野 剛黒川 道徳黒野 祐一
Source
耳鼻と臨床 / jibi to rinsho. 1987, 33(1):100
Subject
ciprofloxacin (BAY o 9867)
comparative study
suppurative otitis media
Language
Japanese
ISSN
0447-7227
2185-1034
Abstract
The clinical effectiveness, safety and utility of Ciprofloxacin (CPFX) in the treatment of patients with suppurative otitis media were compared with patients treated with Pipemidic acid (PPA) in a double-blind study. Patients of 15 years of age or over with acute suppurative otitis media, acute exacerbation of chronic suppurative otitis media, and chronic suppurative otitis media were administered either 600 mg of CPFX or 2g of PPA orally for 7 days. PPA is not indicated for gram positive infection. The following results were obtained. 1. The clinical efficacy rate according to doctors in charge of the cases was 63.8 % (83/130) in the CPFX group and 56.6 % (69/122) in the PPA group. A higher efficacy rate was observed in the CPFX group (p<0.1). In the patients with monomicrobial infec- tions, the CPFX group showed a higher efficacy rate (p<0.1), while in the patients with polymicrobial infections, there was no significant difference between the two groups. The clinical efficacy rate in the CPFX group was higher than that of the PPA group in patients with polymicrobial infections of gram positive bacteria (GPB)(p<0.05). In the patients with polymicrobial infections with GPB plus gram negative bacteria (GNB), the rate for the PPA group was higher than that of CPFX group (p<0.05). In the patients with monomicrobial infections with GPB or GNB or polymicrobial infections with GNB, there was no significant difference between the two groups. 2. On the basis of a committee judgement, the clinical efficacy rates in all the cases were 60.3 % (79/131) in the CPFX group and 50.8 % (62/122) in the PPA group. The difference between the two groups was not significant. In patients with polymicrobial infections with GPB, the efficacy rate in the CPFX group was higher than that in the PPA group (p<0.05). A higher rate of the cases with excellent effects was observed in the PPA group in polymicrobial infections with GPB plus GNB (p<0.1). No difference was seen in monomicrobial infections with GPB or GNB or polymicrobial infections with GNB. 3. As for bacteriological effects, the eradication rates in the total cases were 60.9 % (70/115) in the CPFX group and 54.6% (59/108) in the group. The difference was not significant. In patients with polymicrobial infection with GPB, a higher eradication rate was observed in the CPFX group (p<0.1). In the patients with monomicrobial infections with GPB or GNB or polymicrobial infections with GNB or GPB plus GNB, there was no significant difference. 4. Side effects were noted in 5 of 138 cases (3.6%) treated with CPFX and in 10 of 140 cases (7.1 %) treated with PPA. The difference was not statistically significant. 5. The utility rates by doctors in charge of the cases were 67.9 % (89/131) in the CPFX group and 55.7% (68/122) in the PPA group, respectively. The difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). In patients with acute exacerbation of chronic otitis media, moderately severe infection, both monomicrobial infection, and polymicrobial infection with GPB or GNB, the utility rates of CPFX group were higher than those of the PPA group (p<0.05). In monomicrobial infections with GPB or GNB, the CPFX group showed a trend of a higher rate of utility (p<0.1). From these results, it was concluded that CPFX was very useful drug in the treatment of suppurative otitis media caused by gram positive or negative bacteria at a dose approximately 1/3 that of PPA.