Among the cases of scrub typhus newly recognized in Japan after the World War II, those prevalent in the Izu Shichito Islands of Tokyo Prefecture, in Awa-gun, Chiba Prefecture, and in Mt. Fuji area, ...Shizuoka Prefecture, are called as the "Shichito type scrub typhus" or as the "scutellaris type scrub typhus, " and Trombicula scutellaris has been presumably incriminated as a potential vector of this type of scrub typhus. The study on scrub typhus in Chiba Prefecture was commenced in 1952, when the so called "twentydays fever, " an endemic disease in this Prefecture, was assumed to belong to a scrub typhus by Kasahara et al. (1952) and Kitaoka et al. (1952).
We carried out a well-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and usefulness of cefclidin (CFCL) in bacterial pneumonia, using ceftazime (CAZ) as the reference drug. Either drug was given ...intravenously in a dose of 1 g twice a day for 14 days. The following results were obtained: 1) The overall clinical efficacy rate determined by attending physicians was 86.9% (53/61) for CFCL and 90.3% (56/62) for CAZ. The efficacy rates judged by the Efficacy Assessment Committee (Study Committee) were 85.7% (54/63) for CFCL and 89.1% (57/64) for CAZ. There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy between the two drugs. 2) As for bacteriological responses, the eradication rate was 100% (28/28) in patients receiving CFCL and 96.7% (27/28) in patients receiving CAZ, with no statistically significant difference between them. 3) Adverse reactions were observed by attending physicians in 10/77 (13.0%) patients treated with CFCL and in 2/75 (2.7%) patients receiving CAZ (χ2-test, p<0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions was significantly higher for CFCL than for CAZ. The incidence of abnormal laboratory findings assessed by attending physicians was 16.4% (12/73) for CFCL and 21.1% (15/71) for CAZ. The Study Committee judged that adverse reactions occurred in 9/77 (11.7%) patients receiving CFCL and 2/75 (2.7%) patients receiving CAZ, with no statistically significant difference between the two drugs. In addition, the Study Committee judged that the incidence of abnormal laboratory findings was 27.4% (20/73) for CFCL and 31.0% (22/71) for CAZ, with no statistically significant difference between them. None of the symptoms or abnormal changes were severe. 4) The usefulness rate judged by attending physicians was 83.9% (52/62) for CFCL and 86.2% (56/65) for CAZ. The usefulness rate according to the Study Committee was 76.6% (49/64) for CFCL and 89.1% (57/64) for CAZ, with no significant difference between the two drugs. On the basis of these results, CFCL was concluded to be useful in the treatment of bacterial pneumonia, providing a high clinical and bacteriological response without severe adverse reactions.
We performed a multicenter double-blind clinical trial to compare cefditoren pivoxil (CDTR-PI), a new oral cephem antibiotic, with cefaclor (CCL) in the treatment of skin and skin structure ...infections (furuncle, furunculosis, carbuncle, cellulitis, erysipelas, lymphangitis and lymphadenitis). CDTR-PI was given orally in a dose of 200 mg three times a day, and CCL in a dose of 250 mg three times a day. One hundred fifty-nine patients were randomly assigned to receive either CDTR-PI (83 patients) or CCL (76 patients). One hundred fourty-five of these patients (CDTRPI, 73; CCL, 72) were evaluated in terms of efficacy, 150 (CDTR-PI, 77; CCL, 73) in terms of overall safety, and 147 (CDTR-PI, 75; CCL, 72) in terms of clinical usefulness. 1. No significant differences were detected in the efficacy rates between the two drug groups. The overall efficacy rate was 97.3% (71/73) for the CDTR-PI group and 90.3% (65/72) for the CCL group. 2. The global improvement rate after 5 days of treatment was 92.4% (61/66) for the CDTR-PI group and 84.8% (56/66) for the CCL group, with no significant difference between the two drug groups. 3. The safety rate was 87.0% (67/77) for the CDTR-PI group and 93.2% (68/73) for the CCL group, with no significant difference between the two drug groups. 4. The clinical usefulness rate was 90.7% (68/75) for the CDTR-PI group and 88.9% (64/72) for the CCL group, with no significant difference between the two drug groups. 5. The bacteriological response rate was 90.0% (36/40) for the CDTR-PI group and 91.2% (31/34) for the CCL group, with no significant difference between the two drug groups. 6. The side effect incidence was 11.7% (9/77) for the CDTR-PI group and 2.7% (2/73) for the CCL group, with no significant difference between the two drug groups. Abnormal laboratory values were noted in 2 patients in the CDTR-PI group and in 4 patients in the CCL group, with no significant difference between the two drug groups. We conclude that CDTR-PI is as effective, safe and useful as CCL in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections.
We performed a double blind, multicenter, clinical trial to compare BMY-28100 (a new oral cephem antibiotic) and cefaclor (CCL) in terms of efficacy, safety and clinical usefulness. Both drugs were ...given orally in a dose of 250mg three times a day after meals. The duration of therapy was 7 days for the disease groups I-IV and VI and 10 days for the disease group V. In all, 252 patients were enrolled, 126 for each drug group. Of these, 227 (BMY-28100, 116; CCL, 111) were analyzed for efficacy, 245 (BMY-28100, 121; CCL, 124) for Safety and 277 (BMY-28100, 116; CCL, 111) for usefulness. 1. Overall clinical efficacy rates were 81.9%(95/116) in the BMY-28100 group and 82.9%(92/111) in the CCL group, the difference being not statistically significant. In group I, the rate of “excellent” response was significantly higher in the BMY-28100 group than in the CCL group. 2. The bacteriological response, (eradication) rates were 86.3%(63/73) in the BMY-28100 group and 79.3 (46/58) in the CCL group, the difference being not statistically significant. However, Staphylococcus aureus was eradicated in 95.8%(23/29) in the BMY-28100 group and in 66.7%(8/12) in the CCL group. This difference was statistically significant. 3. Adverse effects were minor in both drug groups. The incidences (3.3% in the BMY-28100 group and 2.4% in the CCL group) were low and not significantly different from each other. Abnormal laboratory findings were seen in 2.9%(3/105) of the BMY-28100 group and in 8.6%(9/105) of the CCL group, the difference being not statistically significant. Overall safety was evaluated by considering adverse effects and abnormal laboratory findings. Overall safety rates were 90.1%(109/121) in the BMY-28100 group and 89.5 (111/124) in the CCL group with no significant difference between the groups. 4. Usefulness was evaluated by considering efficacy and safety. Usefulness rates were 81.9%(95/116) for the BMY-28100 group and 80.2%(89/111) for the CCL group with no significant difference between the groups. We consider BMY-28100 to be as effective, safe and useful as CCL for skin and skin structure infections.
PDF
