Matsumoto K, Noguchi Y, Uzuka Y, Kato Y, Saito A
Jpn J Antibiot. 1976 Dec;29(12):1070-92.
The therapeutic efficacy of cephacetrile (CEC) in bacterial pneumonia was evaluated in contrast with that of cefazolin (CEZ) by a double blind method. Both drugs were administered via intravenous route at a dose of 1 g twice daily for 14 days. 1) Of 81 patients, each 2 from both groups were eliminated from the study because of unknown results. In CEC group, 36 out of 38 obtained a slightly effective or better results (94.7% of effectiveness). In CEZ group, 31 out of 39 showed a similar result and there was no significant difference between the two groups. 2) In more detail, CEC achieved significantly better results in AaDo2 and cardiac insufficiency than CEZ, and this trend was also seen in dyspnea. 3) Regarding background factors, pretreatment severity was slightly in favor of CEC. However, so long as supplementary analysis is concerned, we could not find any relation between the pretreatment severity of symptom and drug efficacy or improvement of symptom. 4) Since there was a slight bias in the background factors, it is difficult to conclude that CEC is better than CEZ in terms of effectiveness. However, we consider CEC is superior to CEZ if compared in details. 5) Both drugs had the same incidence of side effect (6.25%, 3/48 in both groups). When clinical efficacy of CEC in bacterial pneumonia is evaluated together with the incidence of side effect, we may consider that CEC is an effective antibiotic agent equal to or better than CEZ.
采用双盲法对比评价了头孢乙腈(CEC)和头孢唑林(CEZ)对细菌性肺炎的治疗效果。两种药物均通过静脉途径给药,剂量为每日2次,每次1g,共14天。1)81例患者中,两组各有2例因结果不明被排除在研究之外。CEC组38例中有36例获得了轻度有效或更好的结果(有效率94.7%)。CEZ组39例中有31例显示出类似结果,两组之间无显著差异。2)更详细地说,CEC在肺泡动脉氧分压差(AaDo2)和心功能不全方面的结果明显优于CEZ,在呼吸困难方面也有此趋势。3)关于背景因素,治疗前的严重程度略有利于CEC。然而,就补充分析而言,我们未发现症状的治疗前严重程度与药物疗效或症状改善之间存在任何关联。4)由于背景因素存在轻微偏差,很难得出CEC在有效性方面优于CEZ的结论。然而,我们认为如果进行详细比较,CEC优于CEZ。5)两种药物的副作用发生率相同(6.25%,两组均为3/48)。当将CEC对细菌性肺炎的临床疗效与副作用发生率一起评估时,我们可以认为CEC是一种与CEZ相当或更好的有效抗生素。