Seppelt U, Bertermann H, Sonntag H G
Arzneimittelforschung. 1982;32(5):569-71.
30 outpatients suffering from acute urinary infections underwent oral treatment with pivaloyloxymethyl-(2S,5R,6R)-6-(perhydroazepin-1-ylmethylenamino)penicillinate (pivmecillinam) (n = 15) or ampicillin (n = 15) in a first study. In a second study 6-beta-(hexahydro-1H-azepin-1-yl)-methylenamino penicillanic acid (mecillinam) (n = 16) or ampicillin (n = 14) were applied i.v. to 30 patients with pretreated urinary infections. The tolerance of the drugs proved to be comparatively good in both studies. The clinical and antibacterial effectiveness were equally good in the first study. However, in the second study the effectiveness of mecillinam However, in the second study the effectiveness of mecillinam seemed to be comparatively inferior.
在第一项研究中,30名患有急性尿路感染的门诊患者接受了口服治疗,其中15名患者服用了匹氨西林(pivaloyloxymethyl-(2S,5R,6R)-6-(perhydroazepin-1-ylmethylenamino)penicillinate),另外15名患者服用了氨苄西林。在第二项研究中,30名患有经预处理的尿路感染患者接受了静脉注射治疗,其中16名患者使用了美西林(6-beta-(hexahydro-1H-azepin-1-yl)-methylenamino penicillanic acid),另外14名患者使用了氨苄西林。在两项研究中,药物耐受性相对良好。在第一项研究中,临床和抗菌效果同样良好。然而,在第二项研究中,美西林的效果似乎相对较差。