[A comparative study of cefepime for bacterial pneumonia].

The efficacy, safety and usefulness of cefepime (CFPM), a new cephem antibiotic, in bacterial pneumonia, were evaluated in a comparative study against ceftazidime (CAZ). Each drug was administered by intravenous drip infusion at a dose of 1.0 g (nominal potency) twice daily for 14 days, and the following results were obtained. 1. A total of 183 cases were enrolled in this study. Efficacy rates ("good" or better responses) as evaluated by the subcommittee were 90.3% (65/72) in the CFPM group and 94.0% (63/67) in the CAZ group, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. 2. Efficacy rates ("good" or better responses), as evaluated by attending physicians, (in the same bacterial pneumonia cases which were subjected to evaluation by the subcommittee) were 87.5% (63/72) in the CFPM group and 89.6% (60/67) in the CAZ group, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. 3. Bacteriologically, eradication rates were 96.9% (31/32) in the CFPM group and 96.7% (29/30) in the CAZ group with no significant difference between the 2 groups. 4. The incidence of side effects was 5.9% (5/85) in the CFPM group and 4.8% (4/84) in the CAZ group, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. No significant difference was also found between the 2 groups in the incidence of abnormal laboratory findings; 28.4% (23/81) of the case in the CFPM group and 34.1% (28/82) in the CAZ group. 5. As for overall usefulness of the drug in bacterial pneumonia cases, utility rates ("useful" or better evaluations) as evaluated by the subcommittee were 88.9% (64/72) in the CFPM group and 92.5% (62/67) in the CAZ group. The rates as evaluated by investigators (in cases judged as evaluable by the subcommittee) were 87.5% (63/72) and 85.1% (57/67), respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups. These results indicated that CFPM is very useful for the treatment of bacterial pneumonia.

[A comparative study of cefepime for chronic respiratory tract infections].

The clinical efficacy, safety and usefulness of Cefepime (CFPM), a new cephem antibiotics, in chronic respiratory infections were evaluated in a comparative study against Ceftazidime (CAZ). Each drug was administered by intravenous drip infusion at a dose of 1.0 g (nominal potency), twice daily for 14 days, and the following results were obtained: 1. A total of 170 cases were enrolled in this study. Efficacy rates ("good" or better responses) as evaluated by the subcommittee were 86.2% (56/65) in the CFPM group and 84.5% (60/71) in the CAZ group, with no significant difference between the two groups. 2. Efficacy rates ("good" or better responses) as evaluated by attending physicians were 83.3% (55/66) in the CFPM group and 84.5% (60/71) in the CAZ group with no significant difference between the two groups. 3. Bacteriologically, eradication rates were 83.3% (40/48) in the CFPM group and 88.2% (45/51) in the CAZ group, with no significant difference between the two groups. 4. Side effects occurred in none of the patients in the CAZ group and in 4 of the 66 patients in the CFPM group. There was a significant difference between the two groups (Fisher's test p = 0.0489). The incidence of abnormal laboratory findings were 17.6% (12/68) in the CFPM group and 21.1% (16/76) in the CAZ group. There was no significant difference between the two groups. 5. The utility rates evaluated by the subcommittee were 81.8% (54/66) in the CFPM group and 84.5% (60/71) in the CAZ group with no significant difference between the two groups. Only in the incidence of side effects, there was a significant difference between the two groups (Fisher's test p = 0.0489), but there was no significant difference in other items of efficacy, safety and usefulness between the two groups. These results indicate that CFPM is useful for the treatment of chronic respiratory tract infections.