학술논문

A Well-Contorolled Comparative Study on Ceftriaxone with Cefotaxime in Respiratory Tract Infections / 呼吸器感染症に対するセフトリアキソンとセフォタキシムの薬効比較試験
Document Type
Journal Article
Author
Akihiko KUZEAkio ONAKAAkira SAITOAkira SUZUKIAkira WATANABEAtsushi SAITOChiharu KUBOEiji INOUEEiro TSUBURAFukuo IJIMAFumio MIKIFumio NAGAHAMAFusanosuke YAMASAKUHideo IKEMOTOHideo SASAKIHirofumi FUKUHARAHiroichi TANIMOTOHiromaru IWASAKIHiroshi KONHiroshi OKUBOHiroshi OSHITANIHirotada IKEDAHiroyoshi ISHIBASHIHiroyuki KOBAYASHIHiroyuki KUMANOHisashi NAKAHATAHitoshi NAGANOIchiro NAKAYAMAIppei FUJIMORIIzumi HAYASHIJingoro SHIMADAJun GOTOJunzaburo KABEJutaro SHIMOMURAKaneo SUZUKIKaoru OKADAKaoru OYAMAKaoru SHIMADAKatsuo SUZUKIKazufuto FUKAYAKazuo SAKAMOTOKazuo SASAKIKazuo TAKEBEKazuyoshi WATANABEKeigo MAEHARAKeiichi NAKAGAWAKeijyu LEEKeimei MASHIMOKeizo MATSUMOTOKeizo YAMAGUCHIKenji TAKAMURAKentaro WATANABEKikuo ONUMAKiyofumi ISHIKAWAKiyohito TAKAHASHIKiyoshi KONNOKohei HARAKohtaro ITAKURAKoichiro NAKATAKotaro OIZUMIKouichi WADAKouu MUROHASHIKoya SHIBAKunihiko YOSHIMURAKyoko URAYAMAMakoto NAKAZONOMasaaki ARAKAWAMasahiro TSUTSUIMasahito KATOMasakazu TAMURAMasako SASAKIMasanobu KAJIMasao TAMURAMasaru KOYAMAMasaru NAKAGAWAMasaru NASUMasataka KATSUMasumi TOMIZAWAMichiyasu NAKANISHIMikio TAGUCHIMinoru YOSHIYAMAMitsuharu OGIMitsuo MASUDAMitsuo SUZUKIMorikuni ABEMorio SAGARANaohiko CHONABAYASHINobuki AOKINobuo MAEKAWAOsamu KURIMURAOsamu SEKINEReiko SASAKIRensuke KURODARinzo SOEJIMASeibun YONEZUSeiichi AONUMASeiichi MURAKAMISeiichi OHHIRAShigeki ODAGIRIShinichi TANIZAWAShinya YASUDAShiroh IDAShirou KOSAKAShunichi MAEDAShuzaburo FUKUYAMASumio YAMAOKATadashi MIYAHARATakashi INAMATSUTakashi ITOTakashi ITOGATakayoshi TASHIROTakehisa MURAKAMITakehisa YAMAJITamotsu KANEKOTamotsu TAKISHIMATatsuo NAKATANITetsuto MURATATomoko NIHEIToshiaki HAYASHIToshihiko TAKEUCHIToshio HOJOToshiyuki OYEToshiyuki YAMAMOTOTuyoshi KIKUIRIYasutoshi SUZUKIYasuyuki SANOYoichiro GOTOYoji SUZUYAMAYomei HIRAGAYoshihiko KURODAYoshihiro UEDAYoshiji YAMANEYoshimaru USUDAYoshio KOBAYASHIYoshio KURIHARAYoshiro SAWAEYoshitaka NAKAMORIYoshiteru SHIGENOYoshito NIKIYoshiyasu IKUNOYube IIDAYujiro SUZUKIYukio KUMAGAIYukio NOGUCHIYuruko OKAMOTOYuzo MORI三木 文雄上田 良弘下村 壽太郎中園 誠中山 一朗中川 勝中川 圭一中森 祥隆中田 紘一郎中畑 久中西 通泰中谷 龍王久世 彰彦久保 千春二木 芳人二瓶 倫子井上 英二井田 士朗今 寛今野 淳伊藤 隆司佐々木 和雄佐々木 昌子佐々木 玲子佐々木 英夫佐野 靖之前原 敬悟前川 暢夫前田 俊一副島 林造加地 正伸加藤 政仁勝 正孝北條 敏夫原 耕平可部 順三郎吉村 邦彦和田 光一坂元 一夫増田 光男大久保 滉大山 馨大平 誠一大沼 菊夫大泉 耕太郎安田 悳也室橋 光宇宮原 正富沢 磨須美小坂 志郎小山 優小林 宏行小林 芳夫小江 俊行小田切 繁樹尾仲 章男山作 房之輔山口 恵三山岡 澄夫山本 俊幸山根 至二山路 武久岡本 緩子岡田 薫岩崎 博圓島田 馨嶋田 甚五郎平賀 洋明後藤 純後藤 陽一郎押谷 博斉藤 篤斎藤 厚斎藤 玲李 啓充村上 剛久村上 誠一村田 哲人松本 慶蔵板倉 康太郎林 敏明林 泉柴 孝也栗原 義夫栗村 統武内 俊彦武部 和夫池本 秀雄池田 大忠浦山 京子深谷 一太渡辺 一功渡辺 健太郎渡辺 彰澤江 義郎瀧島 任熊谷 幸雄熊野 博之生野 善康田代 隆良田口 幹雄田村 昌士田村 正和盛 勇造相楽 衛男真下 啓明石川 清文石橋 弘義福原 弘文福山 周三郎稲松 孝思筒井 理裕米津 精文糸賀 敬荒川 正昭菊入 剛萩 光春葭山 稔薄田 芳丸藤森 一平蝶名林 直彦螺良 英郎谷本 普一谷澤 伸一那須 勝重野 芳輝野口 行雄金子 保鈴山 洋司鈴木 克男鈴木 周雄鈴木 密雄鈴木 康稔鈴木 明鈴木 雄二郎長浜 文雄長野 準関根 理阿部 守邦青木 信樹青沼 清一飯島 福生飯田 夕高村 研二高橋 清仁黒田 練介黒田 義彦
Source
感染症学雑誌 / Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1986, 60(2):102
Subject
Respiratory tract infections
cefotaxime
ceftriaxone
comparative study
Language
Japanese
ISSN
0387-5911
1884-569X
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.