CLINICAL EVALUATION OF CEFPODOXIME PROXETIL IN THE TREATMENT OF SKIN AND SOFT TISSUE INFECTIONSA DOUBLE BLIND COMPARISON OF CEFPODOXIME PROXETIL AND CEFACLOR

Abstract

In order to objectively evaluate the effectiveness, safety and usefulness of the new oral cephem cefpodoxime proxetil (CS-807, CPDX-PR) for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections, a double-blind comparative study was undertaken using cefaclor (CCL) as the control drug. CPDX-PR and CCL were administered for 7 days at daily doses of 400mg (divided into 2 portions) and 750mg (divided into 3 portions), respectively.
A total of 243 patients (118 in the CPDX-PR group and 125 in the CCL group) was treated in this study. The effectiveness, safety and usefulness were evaluated in 222 (106 in the CPDX-PR group and 116 in the CCL group), 234 (113 in the CPDX-PR group and 121 in the CCL group) and in 223 patients (107 in the CPDX-PR group and 116 in the CCL group), respectively. There were no differences in patients' backgrounds between the 2 groups, except for the presence on the absence of surgical treatments.
The results we obtained are summarized below:
1. In the evaluation of clinical efficacy by the subcommittee, excellent, good, fair and poor efficacy were observed in 36, 43, 17 and 10 patients in the CPDX-PR group, respectively; the efficacy rate was, therefore, calculated to be 74.5%. As for the CCL group, respective results were observed in 50, 39, 17 and 10 patients, indicating an efficacy rate of 76.7%. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups. Improvement rates judged by physicians in charge were 80.2% in the CPDX-PR group and 88.8% in the CCL group. Moreover, no significant difference in diseases or severity were found between the 2 groups.
2. As for the bacteriological efficacy, the 2 groups showed high elimination rates, as 90.1% and 91.6% of the disease causing bacteria were eliminated in the CPDX-PR group and in the CCL group, respectively. Elimination rates in single infections with Staphylococcus aureus were determined to be 85.7% in the CPDX-PR group and 85.0% in the CCL group.
3. Although 6 patients in the CPDX-PR group and 2 patients in the CCL group developed side effects, which were mainly gastrointestinal symptoms, there was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects between the 2 groups. Abnormal laboratory values were found in 5 patients in the CPDX-PR group and 1 patient in the CCL group.
4. There was no significant difference in the usefulness between the 2 groups.
Based on these results, it was judged that CPDX-PR is useful for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections, as CCL.