2006•Chinese Journal of New Drugs and Clinical RemediesRequires access

Safety and efficacy of domestic and imported cefepime in treatment of lower respiratory tract bacterial infection in 120 patients

LI Chong-zhi

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

AIM:To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of domestic cefepime in the treatment of low- er respiratory tract bacterial infections.METHODS:A multi-center,randomized,double blind,parallel-group, comparative study of cefepime was eondueted among 121 patients with respiratory infections.They were random- ized into trial group(61 patients,treated with domestic cefepime,2 g,iv,gtt,bid,for 7-14 days)and control group (60 patients,treated with imported cefepime,2 g,iv,gtt,bid,for 7-14 days).RESULTS:The recovery and ef- fective rates were 66% and 98% in trial group,80% and 100% in control group;the positive rates of bacterial culture were 79% and 83%;the bacterial clearance rates were 98% and 100%;the incidence rates of adverse reactions were 10% and 3%,respectively.There were no significant differences between two groups(P>0.05). CONCLUSION:Domestic cefepime has the same safety and efficacy as imported one in the treatment of lower respiretory tract bacterial infection.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

AIM:To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of domestic cefepime in the treatment of low- er respiratory tract bacterial infections.METHODS:A multi-center,randomized,double blind,parallel-group, comparative study of cefepime was eondueted among 121 patients with respiratory infections.They were random- ized into trial group(61 patients,treated with domestic cefepime,2 g,iv,gtt,bid,for 7-14 days)and control group (60 patients,treated with imported cefepime,2 g,iv,gtt,bid,for 7-14 days).RESULTS:The recovery and ef- fective rates were 66% and 98% in trial group,80% and 100% in control group;the positive rates of bacterial culture were 79% and 83%;the bacterial clearance rates were 98% and 100%;the incidence rates of adverse reactions were 10% and 3%,respectively.There were no significant differences between two groups(P>0.05). CONCLUSION:Domestic cefepime has the same safety and efficacy as imported one in the treatment of lower respiretory tract bacterial infection.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

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:To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of domestic cefepime in the treatment of low- er respiratory tract bacterial infections.METHODS:A multi-center,randomized,double blind,parallel-group, comparative study of cefepime was eondueted among 121 patients with respiratory infections.They were random- ized into trial group(61 patients,treated with domestic cefepime,2 g,iv,gtt,bid,for 7-14 days)and control group (60 patients,treated with imported cefepime,2 g,iv,gtt,bid,for 7-14 days).RESULTS:The recovery and ef- fective rates were 66% and 98% in trial group,80% and 100% in control group;the positive rates of bacterial culture were 79% and 83%;the bacterial clearance rates were 98% and 100%;the incidence rates of adverse reactions were 10% and 3%,respectively.There were no significant differences between two groups(P>0.05). CONCLUSION:Domestic cefepime has the same safety and efficacy as imported one in the treatment of lower respiretory tract bacterial infection.

Key concepts: Cefepime, Medicine, Respiratory tract infections, Incidence (geometry), Adverse effect, Respiratory tract, Internal medicine, Clinical trial

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Safety and efficacy of domestic and imported cefepime in treatment of lower respiratory tract bacterial infection in 120 patients — Research Paper | ScholarLens