头孢唑兰与头孢匹罗治疗复杂性尿路感染的临床效用比较研究
[A comparative study on the clinical utility of cefozopran and cefpirome against complicated urinary tract infections].
作者信息
Kamidono S, Arakawa S, Matsui T, Fujii A, Matsumoto H, Ito N, Shinozaki M, Tsuji T, Matsumoto O, Tanaka H, Minayoshi K, Ohbe S, Yamashita M, Kawabata G, Mizuno Y, Okamoto Y, Nakamura I, Yosiyuki K, Morisue K, Umezu K, Tanaka K, Kondo K, Imanishi O, Nagata H, Maruyama S, Hazama M, Ka S, Kominami M
机构信息
Department of Urology, Kobe University School of Medicine.
出版信息
Jpn J Antibiot. 2000 Jun;53(6):430-50.
Aiming at evaluating the utility of cefozopran (CZOP) against complicated urinary tract infections with the velocity of eradication of causal bacteria in early treatment and clinical efficacy by new criteria of UTIs, a comparative study was conducted using cefpirome (CPR) as the control drug. CZOP and CPR were administered by intravenous drip infusion at a dose of 1 g twice daily. The duration of treatment was for 5 days. The study method involved randomized assignment of the subjects to either group CZOP or group CPR. The results were as follows: 1. Of a total of 80 cases treated, 65 (CZOP group--32 cases, CPR group--33 cases) were evaluated for efficacy. 2. The overall clinical efficacy evaluation according to the criteria proposed by Japanese UTI Committee rated the CZOP group as 90.6% (29/32), and the CPR group as 90.9% (30/33), with no significant difference between the 2 groups. Clinical efficacy evaluated by attending physicians rated the CZOP group as 93.8% (30/32) and the CPR group as 90.9% (30/33). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups. 3. The efficacy rates to pyuria on day 2 were 26.7% and 0% for the CZOP group and the CPR group, respectively, indicating a higher efficacy rate for the former (p < 0.05). Those on after treatment were 59.4% and 54.5% for the CZOP group and the CPR group, respectively, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. 4. Regarding the bacteriological effect, the eradication rates of both groups were over 90% on day 1 and after treatment. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups. 5. Side effects occurred in 1 case (2.6%) out of 39 in the CZOP group and in 1 case (2.4%) out of 41 in the CPR group. Laboratory test value fluctuation was noted in 8 (20.5%) of 39 cases in the CZOP group and 11 (26.8%) of 41 cases in the CPR group. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups. The results indicate that CZOP achieves an early efficacy to pyuria, and is as useful as CPR against complicated urinary tract infections.
为了通过新的泌尿道感染（UTIs）标准，以早期治疗中病原菌的清除速度和临床疗效来评估头孢唑肟（CZOP）对复杂性尿路感染的效用，进行了一项以头孢匹罗（CPR）作为对照药物的比较研究。CZOP和CPR均通过静脉滴注给药，剂量为每日2次，每次1g。治疗持续时间为5天。研究方法包括将受试者随机分配到CZOP组或CPR组。结果如下：1. 在总共80例接受治疗的患者中，65例（CZOP组32例，CPR组33例）进行了疗效评估。2. 根据日本UTI委员会提出的标准进行的总体临床疗效评估中，CZOP组为90.6%（29/32），CPR组为90.9%（30/33），两组之间无显著差异。主治医生评估的临床疗效中，CZOP组为93.8%（30/32），CPR组为90.9%（30/33）。两组之间无显著差异。3. 第2天时，CZOP组和CPR组的脓尿有效率分别为26.7%和0%，表明前者有效率更高（p<0.05）。治疗后，CZOP组和CPR组的有效率分别为59.4%和54.5%，两组之间无显著差异。4. 关于细菌学效果，两组在第1天和治疗后的根除率均超过90%。两组之间无显著差异。5. CZOP组39例中有1例（2.6%）出现副作用，CPR组41例中有1例（2.4%）出现副作用。CZOP组39例中有8例（20.5%）实验室检查值出现波动，CPR组41例中有11例（26.8%）出现波动。两组之间无显著差异。结果表明，CZOP对脓尿有早期疗效，在治疗复杂性尿路感染方面与CPR一样有效。
Zotero 插件