2014•PubMedRequires access

Multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of parenterally administered Cefoselis versus Cefepime for the treatment of acute bacterial infections.

Liu Yb, Lv Xj, R-J Yu, Qiu Hm, Bai Jl, Ning Jiang, Lin JM, Liu Yj, Yan Hy, Song Sd, He P, Guo Dy, Li Xs

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

AIM: This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous Cefoselis injection for the treatment of acute moderate and severe bacterial infections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was carried out using Cefepime as control. Patients received 1.0 g of either Cefoselis or Cefepime for moderate infections or 2.0 g for severe infections at an interval of 12 hours for 7 to 14 days. A total of 276 patients (138 with Cefoselis, 138 with Cefepime) with respiratory or urinary tract infections were enrolled in the study. Up to 137 and 124 patients receiving Cefoselis and 132 and 125 patients receiving Cefepime were eligible for the ITT (intent to treat) and PP (per protocol) analyses, respectively. RESULTS: At the end of the treatment, the cure rates and effective rates were 59.68% (74/124) and 93.55% (116/124) with Cefoselis, and 56.00% (74/124) and 90.40% (116/124) with Cefepime. The bacterial eradication rates of the two groups were 90.32% and 93.85%, respectively. No statistical differences were observed on the above-mentioned parameters between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Adverse events, mainly mild aminotransferase elevation and mild leukopenia, were observed in 11.59% (16/138) and 13.77% (19/138) of patients with Cefoselis and Cefepime, respectively (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cefoselis is an effective and safe choice against acute moderate and severe respiratory infections and UTI (urinary tract infection).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

AIM: This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous Cefoselis injection for the treatment of acute moderate and severe bacterial infections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was carried out using Cefepime as control. Patients received 1.0 g of either Cefoselis or Cefepime for moderate infections or 2.0 g for severe infections at an interval of 12 hours for 7 to 14 days. A total of 276 patients (138 with Cefoselis, 138 with Cefepime) with respiratory or urinary tract infections were enrolled in the study. Up to 137 and 124 patients receiving Cefoselis and 132 and 125 patients receiving Cefepime were eligible for the ITT (intent to treat) and PP (per protocol) analyses, respectively. RESULTS: At the end of the treatment, the cure rates and effective rates were 59.68% (74/124) and 93.55% (116/124) with Cefoselis, and 56.00% (74/124) and 90.40% (116/124) with Cefepime. The bacterial eradication rates of the two groups were 90.32% and 93.85%, respectively. No statistical differences were observed on the above-mentioned parameters between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Adverse events, mainly mild aminotransferase elevation and mild leukopenia, were observed in 11.59% (16/138) and 13.77% (19/138) of patients with Cefoselis and Cefepime, respectively (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cefoselis is an effective and safe choice against acute moderate and severe respiratory infections and UTI (urinary tract infection).

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

AIM: This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous Cefoselis injection for the treatment of acute moderate and severe bacterial infections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was carried out using Cefepime as control. Patients received 1.0 g of either Cefoselis or Cefepime for moderate infections or 2.0 g for severe infections at an interval of 12 hours for 7 to 14 days. A total of 276 patients (138 with Cefoselis, 138 with Cefepime) with respiratory or urinary tract infections were enrolled in the study. Up to 137 and 124 patients receiving Cefoselis and 132 and 125 patients receiving Cefepime were eligible for the ITT (intent to treat) and PP (per protocol) analyses, respectively. RESULTS: At the end of the treatment, the cure rates and effective rates were 59.68% (74/124) and 93.55% (116/124) with Cefoselis, and 56.00% (74/124) and 90.40% (116/124) with Cefepime. The bacterial eradication rates of the two groups were 90.32% and 93.85%, respectively. No statistical differences were observed on the above-mentioned parameters between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Adverse events, mainly mild aminotransferase elevation and mild leukopenia, were observed in 11.59% (16/138) and 13.77% (19/138) of patients with Cefoselis and Cefepime, respectively (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cefoselis is an effective and safe choice against acute moderate and severe respiratory infections and UTI (urinary tract infection).

Key concepts: Cefepime, Medicine, Respiratory tract infections, Urinary system, Leukopenia, Adverse effect, Clinical trial, Internal medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of parenterally administered Cefoselis versus Cefepime for the treatment of acute bacterial infections. — Research Paper | ScholarLens