[Comparative double-blind study of cefroxadine and cephalexin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection].

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and utility of cefroxadine (CXD) for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, a double blind study comparing CXD with cephalexin (CEX) was carried out. Patient received either 1,500 mg/day of CXD 3 times a day, or 2,000 mg/day of CEX 4 times a day for 5 days by oral route, and the following results were obtained. Of the 305 patients, clinical efficacies were evaluated in 220 cases (CXD 105 cases, CEX 115 cases) except that excluded or dropped out. Side effect was evaluated in 301 cases (CXD 150 cases, CEX 151 cases). There was no statistically significant difference in the back ground characteristics between the 2 groups. Overall clinical assessment by the committee according to the "Criteria for Evaluation of Clinical Efficacy of Antimicrobial Agents on Urinary Tract Infection" patients evaluated as better than "good" were 64 of 105 (61.0%) for CXD and 75 of 115 (65.2%) for CEX. The difference between the 2 groups was not statistically significant. In effect on pyuria, patients evaluated as better than "decreased" were 58 of 105 (55.2%) for CXD and 69 of 115 (60.0%) for CEX. The difference between the 2 groups was not statistically significant. In effect of bacteriuria, patients evaluated as better than "decreased" were 57 of 105 (54.3%) for CXD and 69 of 115 (60.0%) for CEX. The difference between the 2 groups was not statistically significant. Analyses were stratified according to classification by the type of infection, diagnosis, degree of pyuria before treatment, and bacterial count before treatment. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment groups as to any item. In evaluation by attending physician, patients evaluated as better than "good" were 81 of 140 (57.9%) for CXD, and 85 of 141 (60.3%) for CEX. Statistically significant difference was not observed between the 2 groups. In drug usefulness by attending physician, patients evaluated as better than "usefulness" were 106 of 140 (75.7%) for CXD, and 109 of 141 (77.3%) for CEX. The difference between the 2 groups was not statistically significant. In evaluation of the infections with sensitive species to both CXD and CEX by the committee according to "Criteria for Evaluation of Clinical Efficacy of Antimicrobial Agents on Urinary Tract Infections, overall clinical efficacies were evaluated in 102 (CXD 48 cases, CEX 54 cases) which were infected with sensitive species. There was no statistically significant difference in the back ground characteristics between the 2 treatment groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

• Authors: S Kamidono, M Harada, J Ishigami, N Takasaki, S Miyazaki, T Furusawa, Y Mizunoe, K Ito, S Momose, S Nakamuta
• Journal: The Japanese journal of antibiotics (Jpn J Antibiot) Vol. 36 Issue 9 Pg. 2571-94 (Sep 1983) ISSN: 0368-2781 [Print] Japan
• PMID: 6361324 (Publication Type: Clinical Trial, Comparative Study, Journal Article)

Chemical References

• Cephalosporins
• cefroxadine
• Cephradine
• Cephalexin

Topics

• Adult
• Aged
• Bacteria (drug effects)
• Cephalexin (therapeutic use)
• Cephalosporins (therapeutic use)
• Cephradine (adverse effects, analogs & derivatives, pharmacology, therapeutic use)
• Clinical Trials as Topic
• Double-Blind Method
• Drug Resistance, Microbial
• Female
• Humans
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Urinary Tract Infections (drug therapy)