cefzil and Pneumonia

Cefprozil was evaluated in four multicentre comparative studies in the treatment of acute respiratory tract infections. In two studies, cefprozil 500 mg q. 12 hours was compared to cefaclor 500 mg q. eight hours for ten days of therapy. Randomization was on a 2:1 (cefprozil:cefaclor) basis in the European centres and 1:1 in North America. The clinical efficacy in acute bronchitis was 88% (284 out of 324 patients) for cefprozil and 88% (183 out of 208) for cefaclor, with successful bacteriological eradication of the causative pathogen in 86% and 82% of the patients, respectively. Amongst the patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, the clinical response rate of 80% (59 out of 74) for cefprozil appeared superior to that of cefaclor at 62% (p = 0.067), whilst the bacteriological response rates were 62% (36 out of 58) for cefprozil and 74% (20 out of 27) for cefaclor. In pneumonia, the clinical response rates for cefprozil and cefaclor therapy were similar, 82% vs. 79%, although bacteriological eradication rates were better for cefprozil at 82% than for cefaclor at 71%. In the comparison of cefprozil with cefuroxime axetil, a total of 170 patients were evaluable. The clinical and bacteriological response rates for cefprozil of 95% and 100% were better than those for cefuroxime axetil 500 mg q. 12 hours of 84% and 75%, respectively. In the cefprozil vs. amoxicillin-clavulanate, 500 mg q. eight hours comparative study, the two antibiotics displayed no significant difference in clinical or bacteriological responses.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Amoxicillin; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Bronchitis; Cefaclor; Cefprozil; Cefuroxime; Cephalosporins; Clavulanic Acids; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Pneumonia; Prodrugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections

Cefprozil was evaluated in four multicentre comparative studies in the treatment of acute respiratory tract infections. In two studies, cefprozil 500 mg q. 12 hours was compared to cefaclor 500 mg q. eight hours for ten days of therapy. Randomization was on a 2:1 (cefprozil:cefaclor) basis in the European centres and 1:1 in North America. The clinical efficacy in acute bronchitis was 88% (284 out of 324 patients) for cefprozil and 88% (183 out of 208) for cefaclor, with successful bacteriological eradication of the causative pathogen in 86% and 82% of the patients, respectively. Amongst the patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, the clinical response rate of 80% (59 out of 74) for cefprozil appeared superior to that of cefaclor at 62% (p = 0.067), whilst the bacteriological response rates were 62% (36 out of 58) for cefprozil and 74% (20 out of 27) for cefaclor. In pneumonia, the clinical response rates for cefprozil and cefaclor therapy were similar, 82% vs. 79%, although bacteriological eradication rates were better for cefprozil at 82% than for cefaclor at 71%. In the comparison of cefprozil with cefuroxime axetil, a total of 170 patients were evaluable. The clinical and bacteriological response rates for cefprozil of 95% and 100% were better than those for cefuroxime axetil 500 mg q. 12 hours of 84% and 75%, respectively. In the cefprozil vs. amoxicillin-clavulanate, 500 mg q. eight hours comparative study, the two antibiotics displayed no significant difference in clinical or bacteriological responses.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Amoxicillin; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Bronchitis; Cefaclor; Cefprozil; Cefuroxime; Cephalosporins; Clavulanic Acids; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Pneumonia; Prodrugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections

The efficacy, safety and usefulness of BMY-28100 for the treatment of bacterial pneumonia were compared with those of cefaclor (hereinafter referred to as CCL) in a double-blind study. The daily dosages were 750 mg for BMY-28100 and 1,500 mg for CCL, divided into 3 administrations daily. These drugs were administered orally for at least 14 days. A total of 172 cases were enrolled in this study. Of these, cases which deviated from the protocols were excluded from evaluations. Thus, clinical efficacy was evaluated in 124 cases, adverse reactions were evaluated in 160 cases, and abnormal laboratory test values were evaluated in 146 cases. The following results were obtained. 1. Efficacy rates ("good" or better responses) in bacterial pneumonia cases as evaluated by the subcommittee were 81.7% (49/60) in the BMY-28100 group and 89.1% (41/46) in the CCL group, thus no significant difference was found between the 2 groups. 2. Efficacy rates ("good" or better responses), as evaluated by investigators, in the same bacterial pneumonia cases which were subjected to the evaluation by the subcommittee were 83.3% (50/60) in the BMY-28100 group and 88.9% (40/45) in the CCL group, thus no significant difference between the 2 groups was found also. 3. Bacteriological response rates in bacterial pneumonia cases were 86.2% (25/29) in the BMY-28100 group and 85.7% (18/21) in the CCL group with no significant difference between the 2 groups. 4. Incidences of subjective/objective clinical adverse symptoms were 3.5% (3/85) in the BMY-28100 group and 1.3% (1/75) in the CCL group, and no significant difference was observed between the 2 groups. No significant difference was also found between the 2 groups in incidences of abnormal laboratory test values, as abnormalities were found in 21.1% (16/76) of the cases in the BMY-28100 group and 25.7% (18/70) in the CCL 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 83.6% (46/55) in the BMY-28100 group and 90.5% (38/42) in the CCL group, and the rates as evaluated by investigators in cases judged as evaluable by the subcommittee were 78.3% (47/60) and 82.2% (37/45), respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups. The utility rates as evaluated by investigators in cases in which diseases were diagnosed as bacterial pneumonia or lung abscess by investigators were 78.3% (47/60) in the BMY-28100 group

Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bacterial Infections; Cefaclor; Cefprozil; Cephalosporins; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pneumonia