Sasaki J, Gotoh J, Morihana K, Uematsu M, Takai H, Ohmura H, Abe H, Ikeshima K, Nishiyama K, Shiiki K
Jpn J Antibiot. 1985 Sep;38(9):2453-80.
A comparative double blind study of lenampicillin (LAPC, KBT-1585) and talampicillin (TAPC) was carried out in order to objectively evaluate efficacy, safety and utility of LAPC in treatment of 238 patients with oral infections. Cases accepted by the Central Committee for evaluation of efficacy and utility were 218, consisting of 101 of the LAPC group and 117 of the TAPC group; safety were 234, consisting of 110 of LAPC and 124 of TAPC. Clinical effectiveness as rated by attending doctor was 84.2% for the LAPC group and 82.9% for the TAPC group. The clinical utility rating was 82.2% in the LAPC group and 82.1% in the TAPC group, showing no significant difference between the 2 drugs. Adverse reactions were found in 6 cases (5.5%) in the LAPC group and 5 cases (4.0%) in the TAPC group, showing no significant difference between the 2 drugs. Cases accepted by the controllers for evaluation of efficacy and utility were 236, consisting of 111 cases of LAPC and 125 cases of TAPC. Those for safety were 236, consisting of 111 cases of LAPC and 125 of TAPC. The clinical effectiveness rating was 77.5% in the LAPC group and 79.2% in the TAPC group. Clinical utility rating was 75.7% in the LAPC group and 78.4% in the TAPC group. Rate of adverse reactions was 5.4% in the LAPC group and 4.0% in the TAPC group, showing no significant difference between the 2 drugs. Cases evaluated for efficacy according to numerical rating on the 3rd day were 200 cases, consisting of 93 of LAPC and 107 of TAPC. The effectiveness rate was 83.9% in the LAPC group and 95.3 in the TAPC group, showing a significant difference between the 2 drugs. On the other hand, taking into consideration evaluation scores of the 5th day, the effectiveness rate was 88.7% in the LAPC group and 96.1% in the TAPC group, showing no significant difference between the 2 drugs. The effectiveness rate in cases of isolated organisms was 84.9% in the LAPC group and 79.7% in the TAPC group, showing no significant difference between the 2 drugs. Adverse reactions were mostly of gastrointestinal origin. Symptoms were not serious and disappeared soon after administration was discontinued or immediately after administration was completed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
为客观评估仑氨西林(LAPC,KBT - 1585)和酞氨西林(TAPC)的疗效、安全性和实用性,对238例口腔感染患者进行了一项比较双盲研究。中央委员会接受评估疗效和实用性的病例有218例,其中LAPC组101例,TAPC组117例;评估安全性的病例有234例,其中LAPC组110例,TAPC组124例。主治医生评定的临床有效率,LAPC组为84.2%,TAPC组为82.9%。临床实用性评定,LAPC组为82.2%,TAPC组为82.1%,两种药物之间无显著差异。LAPC组有6例(5.5%)出现不良反应,TAPC组有5例(4.0%)出现不良反应,两种药物之间无显著差异。质控人员接受评估疗效和实用性的病例有236例,其中LAPC组111例,TAPC组125例;评估安全性的病例有236例,其中LAPC组111例,TAPC组125例。临床有效率评定,LAPC组为77.5%,TAPC组为79.2%。临床实用性评定,LAPC组为75.7%,TAPC组为78.4%。LAPC组不良反应发生率为5.4%,TAPC组为4.0%,两种药物之间无显著差异。第3天根据数字评分评估疗效的病例有200例,其中LAPC组93例,TAPC组107例。LAPC组有效率为83.9%,TAPC组为95.3%,两种药物之间有显著差异。另一方面,考虑到第5天的评估分数,LAPC组有效率为88.7%,TAPC组为96.1%,两种药物之间无显著差异。分离出单一微生物的病例中,LAPC组有效率为84.9%,TAPC组为79.7%,两种药物之间无显著差异。不良反应大多源于胃肠道。症状不严重,停药后或给药结束后很快消失。(摘要截选至400字)