Jpn J Antibiot. 1983 Feb;36(2):316-68.
Using the double-blind comparative trial method, we conducted a multicenter cooperative study at 52 institutions throughout Japan on the efficacy and the safety of cefotetan (CTT) at a dose of 2 g/day and cefmetazole (CMZ) at a dose of 4 g/day in treating bacterial pneumonia and other lower respiratory tract infections and achieved the following results. 1. The patients were classified according to severity of symptoms and based on the judgment of the committee, it was concluded that in regard to clinical efficacy CTT proved to be significantly superior to CMZ in bacterial pneumonia cases of moderate severity. Even in all cases, CTT tend to show a superior clinical effectiveness on cases moderate severity. No other significant differences in regard to clinical efficacy were observed between these 2 drugs either by the committee or the attending physicians. 2. An analysis of all cases accepted by the committee showed that CTT was significantly superior in effectively relieving fever, and CMZ was significantly superior in relieving cough symptom. 3. No significant difference was observed between 2 drugs in regard to bacteriological effectiveness. 4. No significant difference was observed between 2 drugs in regard to the nature or frequency of side effects or abnormal clinical laboratory findings. 5. No significant difference was observed between 2 drugs in regard to clinical usefulness. From the above findings we concluded that 2 g/day of CTT was equal or superior in some cases to 4 g/day of CMZ in the treatment of respiratory tract infections.
我们采用双盲对比试验方法,在日本全国52家机构开展了一项多中心合作研究,以探讨每日剂量2克的头孢替坦(CTT)和每日剂量4克的头孢美唑(CMZ)治疗细菌性肺炎及其他下呼吸道感染的疗效和安全性,结果如下。1. 根据症状严重程度对患者进行分类,并经委员会判定,得出结论:在中度严重程度的细菌性肺炎病例中,CTT的临床疗效显著优于CMZ。即便在所有病例中,CTT在中度严重程度的病例中也往往显示出更优的临床疗效。委员会和主治医生均未观察到这两种药物在临床疗效方面存在其他显著差异。2. 委员会对所有纳入病例的分析表明,CTT在有效退热方面显著更优,而CMZ在缓解咳嗽症状方面显著更优。3. 两种药物在细菌学疗效方面未观察到显著差异。4. 两种药物在副作用性质或发生率以及临床实验室检查异常方面未观察到显著差异。5. 两种药物在临床实用性方面未观察到显著差异。根据上述研究结果,我们得出结论:在治疗呼吸道感染方面,每日2克的CTT在某些情况下等同于或优于每日4克的CMZ。