Soejima R, Hino J, Sumi M, Okimoto N, Yagi S, Tsukiyama K, Matsushima T, Kawanishi M, Hiraga Y, Ohmichi M
Department of Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School and Related Hospitals.
Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1991 Jan;65(1):96-109. doi: 10.11150/kansenshogakuzasshi1970.65.96.
In order to determine the optimal dose of cefpirome sulfate (HR810, CPR) against respiratory tract infections (RTI), an optimal dose-finding study was conducted on cases of chronic RTI, and the clinical properties of the drug were compared with those of ceftazidime (CAZ). Inpatients with chronic RTI were randomly assigned to 3 groups: an HR 0.5 g group, receiving 0.5 g X 2/day of CPR an HR 1.0 g group, receiving 1.0 X 2/day of CPR and a CAZ group, receiving 1.0 g X 2/day of CAZ. As a rule, the drugs were administered by intravenous drip infusion for 14 days, after which period clinical efficacy, bacteriological response, safety, and utility were investigated. Of the total 121 cases, 106 were subject to analysis of clinical efficacy, including 38 cases in the HR 0.5 g group, 32 in the HR 1.0 g group, and 36 in the CAZ group. Efficacy rates in the assessment by the committee were 84.2% for the HR 0.5 g group, 75.0% for the HR 1.0 g group, and 86.1% for the CAZ group, without any significant difference between the 3 groups. The bacterial elimination rates were 73.9%, 75.0% m and 88.5%, respectively, without any significant difference between the 3 groups. Associated reactions were noted in 2 of 36 cases in the HR 1.0 g group (eruption and diarrhea), but not in the other 2 groups. The incidence of abnormal clinical laboratory findings was 23.1% in the HR 0.5 g group, 22.2% in the HR 1.0 g group, and 22.5% in the CAZ group, without any significant difference between the 3 groups. Utility rates were 84.2% for the HR 0.5 g group, 74.2% for the HR 1.0 g group, and 86.1% for the CAZ group, without any significant difference between the 3 groups. The HR 0.5 g and 1.0 groups showed no difference in clinical efficacy, bacteriological response, safety, and utility against RTI, and the results of both groups were about equal to those of the CAZ group.
为确定硫酸头孢匹罗(HR810,CPR)治疗呼吸道感染(RTI)的最佳剂量,针对慢性RTI患者进行了最佳剂量探索研究,并将该药的临床特性与头孢他啶(CAZ)进行比较。慢性RTI住院患者被随机分为3组:HR 0.5g组,接受CPR 0.5g×2次/天;HR 1.0g组,接受CPR 1.0g×2次/天;CAZ组,接受CAZ 1.0g×2次/天。通常,药物通过静脉滴注给药14天,之后调查临床疗效、细菌学反应、安全性和实用性。在总共121例病例中,106例接受了临床疗效分析,其中HR 0.5g组38例,HR 1.0g组32例,CAZ组36例。委员会评估的有效率分别为:HR 0.5g组84.2%,HR 1.0g组75.0%,CAZ组86.1%,3组之间无显著差异。细菌清除率分别为73.9%、75.0%和88.5%,3组之间无显著差异。HR 1.0g组36例中有2例出现相关反应(皮疹和腹泻),其他2组未出现。临床实验室检查异常发生率在HR 0.5g组为23.1%,HR 1.0g组为22.2%,CAZ组为22.5%,3组之间无显著差异。实用性比率分别为:HR 0.5g组84.2%,HR 1.0g组74.2%,CAZ组86.1%,3组之间无显著差异。HR 0.5g组和1.0g组在治疗RTI的临床疗效、细菌学反应、安全性和实用性方面无差异,两组结果与CAZ组大致相当。