학술논문

Comparative Clinical Study of Ceftazidime and Cefotiam for Respiratory Tract Infections by a Double-blind Method / 呼吸器感染症に対するCeftazidimeとCefotiamとの薬効比較試験成績
Document Type
Journal Article
Author
Akihiko KISHIMOTOAkira ITOAkira SAITOAkira SUZUKIAkira WATANABEAsako YAMAMOTOAtsushi SAITOEiji KANETOEiro TSUBURAFukuo IIJIMAFumio MATSUMOTOFumio MIKIFumio TANAKAFusanosuke YAMASAKUFuyuhiko HIGASHIGen ENOOKAHajimu TAKEDAHideki SASAKIHideo IKEMOTOHideo SASAKIHideya MURABAYASHIHideyuki HASEGAWAHiroichi TANIMOTOHiromaru IWASAKIHiromi KIHARAHiromichi HORIKAWAHironobu IHARAHiroshi OKUBOHiroshi TAKAHASHIHirotada IKEDAHiroyoshi ISHIBASHIHiroyuki KAWAHARAHiroyuki KOBAYASHIHitoshi NAGANOIchiro NAKAYAMAIppei FUJIMORIIsao NAKAMURAIsao NITTAIzumi HAYASHIJingoro SHIMADAJun CHIBAJun GOTOJunichi SUETSUNAJunzaburo KABEKOUJIN KINKaneo SUZUKIKanzo SUZUKIKaoru OKADAKaoru OYAMAKaoru SHIMADAKatsuhiro OKAMOTOKazufuto FUKAYAKazuhiro OKUNOKazuma FUJINOKazumine KOBARIKazuo TAKEBEKazuyoshi WATANABEKeigo MAEHARAKeiichi NAKAGAWAKeiji TAKAHASHIKeimei MASHIMOKeizo MATSUMOTOKeizo YAMAGUCHIKenji MARUMOKenji TAKAMURAKikuo ONUMAKiyo NISHIOKAKiyoshi KONNOKohei HARAKohki KIKUCHIKohta KOHNOKohu MUROHASHIKohya SHIBAKoichiro NAKATAKojiro YASUNAGAKokichi FUKUSHIMAKotaro OIZUMIKunihiko SHINDOKunihiko YOSHIMURAKuninori SUZUKIKunio NOMURAKyoko URAYAMAKyoko WATANABEMakio KURIHARAMasakazu TAMURAMasako SASAKIMasao MIKITANIMasao NAKATOMIMasaro KAJIMasaru KOYAMAMasaru NASUMasataka KATSUMasumi TOMIZAWAMieko KAWAIMitsunari NAKAMURAMitsunobu HONMAMitsuo ASAKAWAMorio SAGARAMuneto YOSHIOKANaohiko CHONABAYASHINaoki TAMAZAWANaoyoshi MASAKINobuaki SHIGEMATSUNobuki AOKINobuyuki HIROSEOsamu KURIHARAOsamu SEKINEOsamu UEHARARinzo SOEJIMARyuji AKIYOSHIRyusaku SHIMIZUSeiichi AONUMASeiji MITAShigeki ODAGIRIShigeru KOHNOShigeru TAMAKIShigetake MIYAZAKIShigetoshi YANAGIYAShinji OKUIShinya YASUDAShiro IDAShohei NAGAOKAShoji YASUIShuichiro YOSHIDASyunji HAYASHITadashi MIYAHARATakahisa SAITOTakashi INAMATSUTakashi ITOGATakashi YAMAMOTOTakehisa YAMAJITakehito NAKABAYASHITakeshi ISHIZAKITaketsune MATSUMOTOTamotsu KANEKOTamotsu TAKISHIMATatsuo NAKATANITatsuya ABETetsuji KOROKUTetsuro UKAITomio ONUMATomohiro KANAZAWATomoyuki HARADAToshihiro GOTOToshiro ODAToshiyuki YAMAMOTOToyokazu TAMURATsunetoshi KOTEDATsutomu YAMAZAKIYasuko YUASAYasushi UEDAYasutoshi SUZUKIYasuyuki SANOYoichiro ICHIKAWAYoji SUZUYAMAYomei HIRAGAYoshihiko ARATANIYoshihiro UEDAYoshihito NIKIYoshimaru USUDAYoshio AOKIYoshio KOBAYASHIYoshiro ISHIIYoshiro SAWAEYoshitaka NAKAMORIYoshiteru SHIGENOYoshiyuki MITSUTAKEYube IIDAYukio KUMAGAIYuruko OKAMOTOYutoku KINJO三木 文雄三木谷 政夫上原 修上田 泰上田 良弘中富 昌夫中山 一朗中川 圭一中村 光成中村 功中林 武仁中森 祥隆中田 紘一郎中谷 龍王丸茂 健治二木 芳人井原 裕宣井田 士朗今野 淳伊藤 章佐々木 昌子佐々木 秀樹佐々木 英夫佐野 靖之光武 良幸前原 敬悟副島 林造加地 正郎勝 正孝千場 純原 耕平原田 知行可部 順三郎吉岡 宗吉村 邦彦吉田 秀一郎堀川 博道大久保 滉大山 馨大沼 菊夫大泉 耕太郎奥井 津二奥野 一裕安井 昭二安永 幸二郎安田 悳也室橋 光宇宮原 正宮崎 重武富沢 磨須美小六 哲司小山 優小張 一峰小林 宏行小林 芳夫小沼 富男小田 俊郎小田切 繁樹山作 房之輔山口 恵三山崎 力山本 俊幸山本 敬山本 朝子山路 武久岡本 勝博岡本 緩子岡田 薫岩崎 博円岸本 明比古島田 馨嶋田 甚五郎市川 洋一郎平賀 洋明広瀬 宣之後東 俊博後藤 純斉藤 孝久斎藤 厚斎藤 玲斎藤 篤新田 功木原 広美末綱 純一本間 光信村林 秀哉東 冬彦松本 慶蔵松本 文夫松本 武典林 俊治林 泉柳谷 重利柴 孝也柾木 尚義栗原 牧夫栗村 統武田 元武部 和夫池本 秀雄池田 大忠沢江 義郎河原 弘規河合 美枝子河野 浩太河野 茂浅川 三男浦山 京子深谷 一太清水 隆作渡辺 一功渡辺 京子渡辺 彰湯浅 保子滝島 任熊谷 幸雄猪岡 元玉木 重玉沢 直樹田中 二三郎田村 正和田村 豊一相楽 衛男真下 啓明石井 禎郎石崎 驍石橋 弘義福島 孝吉秋吉 龍二稲松 孝思籠手田 恒敏糸賀 敬美田 誠二荒谷 義彦菊地 弘毅薄田 芳丸藤森 一平藤野 和馬蝶名林 直彦螺良 英郎西岡 きよ谷本 普一進藤 邦彦那須 勝重松 信昭重野 芳輝野村 邦雄金 衡仁金城 勇徳金子 保金澤 知博金藤 英二鈴山 洋司鈴木 周雄鈴木 国功鈴木 幹三鈴木 康稔鈴木 明長岡 章平長谷川 英之長野 準関根 理阿部 達也青木 信樹青木 良雄青沼 清一飯島 福生飯田 夕高村 研二高橋 寛高橋 敬治鵜飼 徹朗
Source
感染症学雑誌 / Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1984, 58(7):663
Subject
Cefotiam
Ceftazidime
Double-blind Method
Respiratory Tract Infection
Language
Japanese
ISSN
0387-5911
1884-569X
Abstract
For objective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime (CAZ), a new cephem antibiotic, in respiratory tract infections, a double blind comparative study was carried out against cefotiam (CTM). Either of the drugs was administered by intravenous drip infusion in the unit dose of 1 g (potency) twice daily for 14 days, and the following results were obtained.1. In the assessment by the efficacy Assessment Committee, the overall clinical efficacy rate was 73.2%(90/123) in the CAZ group and 72.0%(90/125) in the CTM group, with no statistically significant difference between the two treatments. When reviewed for each diagnosis, the efficacy rate was slightly lower in the CAZ group than that in the CTM group 60.6%(40/66) and 74.2%(49/66), respectively, in bacterial pneumonia and lung abscess, although there was no significant difference between the two treatments. Whereas in chronic RTI the efficacy rate was higher in the CAZ group (86.0%, 43/50) than that in the CTM group (66.7%, 36/54) with significant difference (χ2-test, <0.05).2. In the assessment by the physicians in charge, the overall clinical efficacy rate for all cases was 70.7%(104/147) in the CAZ group and 63.7%(101/147) in the CTM group, with no significant difference between the two treatments. When reviewed for each diagnosis, efficacy rate was 70.1%(68/97) in the CAZ group and 71.7%(66/92) in the CTM group in the treatment of bacterial pneumonia and lung abscess, and there was statistically no significant difference between the two treatments. In chronic RTI, the efficacy rate in the CAZ group (79.5%, 35/44) tended to be higher than that in the CTM group (66.7%, 34/51) (U-test, p<0.10).3. In the 112 cases (55 cases in the CAZ group, 57 cases in the CTM group) in which the bacteriological response could be assessed, elimination of bacteria was achieved in more cases in the CAZ group than in the CTM group, with significant difference (U-test, χ2-test, p<0.01). As to the eradication rate including “replaced”, there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatments.4. As far as the incidence of side effects and abnormal laboratory findings were concerned, there was no significant difference between the two treatments.5. The Committee assessed the overall utility (efficacy + safety) as 84.0%(42/50) in the CAZ groupand 66.7%(36/54) in the CTM group in chronic RTI, and the utility in the CAZ group tended to be higher than that in the CTM group (χ2-test, p<0.10). In other diagnoses and also in all cases, there was no significant difference between the two treatments. In the assessment by the physicians in charge, there was no significant difference between the two drugs in the utility.From the above results, CAZ was considered to be as useful as CTM, based on the efficacy and safety in respiratory tract infections.