Suppr超能文献

头孢替安(CGP/14221)与头孢噻吩治疗尿路感染的临床评估

Clinical evaluation of cefotiam (CGP/14221) versus cephalothin in the treatment of urinary tract infections.

作者信息

Tselentis J, Cordossis T, Eliopoulos G

出版信息

Pharmatherapeutica. 1983;3(6):382-7.

PMID:6312460
Abstract

A study was carried out in 35 patients with urinary tract infections to compare the efficacy and tolerance of cefotiam and cephalothin. Patients received at random either 1 g cefotiam twice daily (19 patients) or 1 g cephalothin 4-times daily (16 patients) parenterally over a period of 10 days. Therapeutic efficacy was assessed mainly on disappearance of bacteriuria. Only 1 patient of those receiving cefotiam failed to respond and suffered a delayed relapse. Five patients failed to respond to cephalothin: in 3 of them bacteriuria persisted throughout treatment and there was relapse in the other 2 patients. The time for the disappearance of bacteriuria was significantly shorter in the cefotiam group.

摘要

对35例尿路感染患者进行了一项研究,以比较头孢替安和头孢噻吩的疗效及耐受性。患者随机接受以下治疗:19例患者每日两次静脉注射1g头孢替安,共10天;16例患者每日4次静脉注射1g头孢噻吩,共10天。主要根据菌尿消失情况评估治疗效果。接受头孢替安治疗的患者中只有1例无反应并出现延迟复发。5例患者对头孢噻吩无反应:其中3例在整个治疗过程中菌尿持续存在,另外2例出现复发。头孢替安组菌尿消失时间明显更短。

相似文献

4
Clinical evaluation of cefotiam and cefamandole in respiratory tract infections.
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1985 Feb;23(2):105-8.
5
[Microbiologic and clinical significance of cefotiam].
Z Gesamte Inn Med. 1985 Mar 1;40(5):143-8.
8
Comparative efficacy of cefotiam versus cephalothin in the therapy of skin and soft tissue infections.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984 Jun;25(6):778-80. doi: 10.1128/AAC.25.6.778.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验