McCabe R, Chirurgi V, Farkas S A, Haddow A, Heinz G, Greene S
University of California Medical School, Davis, California, USA.
Am J Med. 1996 Jun 24;100(6A):60S-67S. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(96)00109-x.
Patients with bacterial pneumonia often are treated empirically with parenteral broad-spectrum antimicrobials intended to cover potential gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens. However, beta-lactamase-mediated resistance has developed to many of these antimicrobials, particularly third-generation cephalosporins, and has led to the development of fourth-generation agents that are relatively beta-lactamase stable. The purpose of these studies was to compare the efficacy and safety of the fourth-generation agent, cefepime, with that of the third-generation agent, ceftazidime, in the treatment of hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe bacterial pneumonia. A total of 336 (97 evaluable) patients were enrolled in an open-label study, and 99 (23 evaluable) patients were enrolled in a blinded study of patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) including pneumonia. Patients were randomized to receive either cefepime 1 g every 12 hours or ceftazidime 1 g every 8 hours given as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes. Efficacy analysis included the evaluable patients while the safety analysis included all patients. The results in the open-label study were as follows: In patients with pneumonia, clinical response was satisfactory in 58 (85%) of 68 patients in the cefepime group and 21 (72%) of 29 patients in the ceftazidime group. Bacteriologic eradication occurred for 75 (93%) of 81 pathogens and 30 (94%) of 32 pathogens isolated from the 68 cefepime-treated patients and 29 ceftazidime-treated patients, respectively. The results in the blinded study were as follows: In patients with pneumonia, clinical response was satisfactory in 12 (80%) of 15 cefepime patients and in 7 (88%) of 8 ceftazidime patients, and the bacteriologic eradication rates were 85% (17/20 pathogens) and 73% (8/11 pathogens) isolated from the 15 cefepime-treated patients and the eight ceftazidime-treated patients, respectively. Among the most frequent adverse events in both groups were nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Similar adverse events were noted in the 99 patients in the blinded study. These studies indicate that the efficacy and safety of cefepime administered at 1 g twice daily is comparable to that of ceftazidime administered at 1 g three times daily for treatment of hospitalized patients with pneumonia caused by susceptible pathogens.
细菌性肺炎患者通常会接受经验性的胃肠外广谱抗菌药物治疗,旨在覆盖潜在的革兰氏阴性菌和革兰氏阳性菌病原体。然而,许多这类抗菌药物已出现β-内酰胺酶介导的耐药性,尤其是第三代头孢菌素,这促使了相对β-内酰胺酶稳定的第四代药物的研发。这些研究的目的是比较第四代药物头孢吡肟与第三代药物头孢他啶在治疗中重度细菌性肺炎住院患者时的疗效和安全性。共有336例(97例可评估)患者参与了一项开放标签研究,99例(23例可评估)患者参与了一项针对包括肺炎在内的下呼吸道感染(LRTI)患者的盲法研究。患者被随机分配接受每12小时静脉输注1克头孢吡肟或每8小时静脉输注1克头孢他啶,输注时间为30分钟。疗效分析纳入可评估患者,安全性分析纳入所有患者。开放标签研究的结果如下:在肺炎患者中,头孢吡肟组68例患者中有58例(85%)临床反应满意,头孢他啶组29例患者中有21例(72%)临床反应满意。从68例接受头孢吡肟治疗的患者和29例接受头孢他啶治疗的患者中分离出的病原体,分别有81种病原体中的75种(93%)和32种病原体中的30种(94%)实现了细菌学清除。盲法研究的结果如下:在肺炎患者中,头孢吡肟组15例患者中有12例(80%)临床反应满意,头孢他啶组8例患者中有7例(88%)临床反应满意,从15例接受头孢吡肟治疗的患者和8例接受头孢他啶治疗的患者中分离出的病原体,细菌学清除率分别为85%(20种病原体中的17种)和73%(11种病原体中的8种)。两组中最常见的不良事件包括恶心、腹泻、呕吐和腹痛。在盲法研究的99例患者中也观察到了类似的不良事件。这些研究表明,对于治疗由易感病原体引起的肺炎住院患者,每日两次给予1克头孢吡肟的疗效和安全性与每日三次给予1克头孢他啶相当。