Comparative Test of the Effectiveness of Cefoperazone (T-1551) and Cefazolin (CEZ) on Respiratory Tract Infection by Double Blind Method (II)

NAKAGAWA Keiichi, WATANABE Kentaro, KOYAMA Masaru, KIHARA Norio, SUZUKI Tatsuo, 星原 芳雄, FUKUI Akira, KATO Yasumichi, SAITO Akira, TOMIZAWA Masumi, NAKAYAMA Ichiro, KINOSHITA Yoshio, ISHIKAWA Kiyofumi, NAGAHAMA Fumio, NAKABAYASHI Takehito, YASUDA Shinya, KOROKU Tetsuji, SAITO Takahisa, HARADA Kazunori, KON Hiroshi, MIKAMI Takashi, WATANABE Nobuo, YOKOTA Yasumasa, KIRISAWA Toshio, NAKASATO Akira, SASAKI Akira, ITO Masataka, SATO Ryuji, TAKEBE Kazuo, KUMASAKA Yoshihiro, NAKAHATA Hisashi, KOSAKA Shiro, NAKAMURA Mitsuo, IMAMURA Kenichi, MACHIDA Koji, SASAKI Kazuo, OKAMOTO Katsuhiro, YOSHIDA Shuichiro, KAWABE Hiroyasu, YOSHIOKA Mitsuaki, NARITA Shokou, TSUTSUI Masahiro, TAKISHIMA Tamotsu, ARAI Sumio, KONISHI Kazuki, TAIMA Tadashi, SATO Nobuo, TAKEDA Hajime, NIWAYAMA Masatoshi, YAMASAKU Fusanosuke, SUZUKI Yasutoshi, SEKINE Osamu, USUDA Yoshimaru, AOKI Nobuki, YUASA Yasuko, HAYASHI Izumi, KATSU Masataka, KAWAI Mieko, AOYAGI Teruo, YANAI Noboru, TAKANAMI Iwao, MOURI Masashi, KUNII Otohiko, FUKAYA Kazufuto, UEDA Yasushi, SAITO Atsushi, SHIMADA Jingoro, OOMORI Masahisa, SHIBA Kooya, YAMAJI Takehisa, IHARA Hironobu, HOJO Toshio, MIYAHARA Tadashi, TANIMOTO Hiroichi, TACHIBANA Akio, NAKADA Koichiro, SUZUKI Mikizo, SHIMADA Kaoru, INAMATSU Takashi, URAYAMA Kyoko, MASHIMO Keimei, YAMAOKA Sumio, KABE Junzaburo, KITAMOTO Osamu, KOBAYASHI Hiroyuki, IKEMOTO Hideo, WATANABE Ikko, TAKAHASHI Terumi, ODAGIRI Touji, FUJIMORI Ippei, MASTUOKA Yasuo, KOBAYASHI Yoshio, SEKITA Kojiro, MITSUI Kenji, FUKUSHIMA Kokichi, ITO Akira, HASEGAWA Hideyuki, YAMANAKA Koichi, SINDO Kunihiko, YAMASAKI Ryuichiro, KURIHARA Makio, SUYAMA Takashi, YAMAMOTO Raiji, OBIGANE Yukihiko, ABE Shizuo, TAKIGAMI Tadashi, OYAMA Kaoru, SUZUKI Kuninori, KUROSAKI Masao, HAYASE Mitsuru, OOYA Nobuo, YAMAMOTO Toshiyuki, KATO Masahito, NAGASAKA Hirohiko, MORI Kozo, KITAURA Saburo, NANJO Kunio, KATO Joichi, MAEKAWA Nobuo, NAKANISHI Michiyasu, INABA Nobuo, ODA Yoshiro, SHIOTA Kenzo, MIKI Fumio, OKUBO Akira, OKAMOTO Yuruko, UBA Fumihiko, UEDA Yoshihiro, MAEHARA Keigo, SOEJIMA Rinzo, MATSUSHIMA Toshiharu, TANO Yoshihiko, NIKI Yoshito, YAGI Susumu, HARA Hironori, SODA Kyosei, KIMURA Naomi, MATSUMOTO Takanobu, SEWAKE Hiroshi, NISHIMURA Mitsue, HAYAKAWA Mikio, KUNIKI Hiromichi, KURIMURA Osamu, SADAMOTO Kazue, SASAKI Hideo, TSUBURA Eiro, TAKISHITA Yoshihiro, GOTO Toshihiro, SAWAE Yoshiro, OKADA Kaoru, ISHIBASHI Tsuneo, TAKAMOTO Masanori, MAEDA Fumihiko, FUJIKI Tetsuo, YOSHIDA Minoru, NAGANO Hitoshi, MATSUO Shinichi, HARA Kohei, NAKATOMI Masao, NASU Masaru, TSUTSUMI Tsuneo, SHIGENO Yoshiteru, HIROTA Masaki, MATSUMOTO Keizo, SHISHIDO Harumi, KIMURA Hisao, YOKOYAMA Kouichi, HAYASHI Masato, SHINDO Chiyohiko, TOKUOMI Haruhiko, FUKUDA Yasutsugu, TOKUNAGA Katsumasa, SHIMA Kiyoshi, ICHIKI Teruya

doi:10.11150/kansenshogakuzasshi1970.54.798

Comparative test by double blind method were conducted by administering 2 g of CPZ and 4 g of CEZ as a control per day for comparing the actions of both the medicines in order to ascertain the efficacy and safety of CPZ against respiratory tract infection. Clinical examination indicated the effectiveness of CPZ in 75.2% of the cases, while CEZ proved effective in 56.5% of the cases, and showed that CPZ was significantly advantageous over CEZ. CPZ showed a signifficant advantage over CEZ against the individual diseases. In the cases involving bacterial pneumonia, CPZ was effective in 86.2% of the cases, while CEZ was effective in 64.4% and in the cases involving chronic respiratory tract infection, CPZ showed an efficacy of 63.6%, while CEZ was effective in 40.0% of the cases. As regards the bacteriological effects of the medicines, CPZ showed a significantly high efficacy in Gram-negative bacteria. CPZ was effective in 70.6% of the cases, while CEZ was effective in 54.5%, even though Pseudomonas, Enterobacter and H. influenzae having no or very little sensitivity to CEZ were excluded from consideration. No significant difference was observed between the two medicines in the manifestation of any side effect or abnormality in laboratory findings. All of such side effects and abnormalities that were observed were merely of the type usually observed with medicines composed of β-lactam. The utility of CPZ was significantly superior to that of CEZ. In view of the foregoing results, CPZ would be sufficient for effective treatment of respiratory tract infection.

Comparative Test of the Effectiveness of Cefoperazone (T-1551) and Cefazolin (CEZ) on Respiratory Tract Infection by Double Blind Method (II)

Bibliographic Information

Search this article

Description

Journal

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Export

Report a problem