A COMPARATIVE CLINICAL STUDY OF L-105 (CEFUZONAME) AND CEFOTIAM IN POSTOPERATIVE INFECTIONS
1986 Volume 34 Issue 8 Pages 739-772
Details
1986 Volume 34 Issue 8 Pages 739-772
To objectively evaluate the efficacy safety, and utility of L-105 for postoperative infections including postoperative wound infection, a well-controlled clinical study was conducted in comparison with cefotiam (CTM). Each drug was administered 2g daily by intravenous drip infusion. The results were as follows:
1. Clinical efficacy rates were 81.3%(91/112) for L-105 group and 75.2%(82/109) for CTM group. When the groups were subdivided into wound infection and other infections, the efficacy rates were: in wound infection, 89.6%(60/67) for L-105 group and 89. 4%(59/66) for CTM group, while in other infections group the rates were 68.9%(31/45) for L-105 group and 53.5%(23/43) for CTM group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups.
2. As antibacterial activity the bacterial eradications were examined and the rates were 63.2%(48/76) for L-105 group and 53. 4%(39/73) for CTM group. In wound infection, the rate for L-105 group was 67.3%(33/49) and for CTM group 61.7%(29/47), whereas in other infections, L-105 group showed 55.6%(15/27) and CTM group 38. 5%(10/26). No statistically significant differences were rioted between the two drug groups.
3. In final overall improvement evaluation, the rate of moderate improvement and above grade was 80.4%(90/112) for L-105 group and 73. 4%(80/109) for CTM group. In wound infection, the rates were 89.6%(60/67) for L-105 group and 87.9%(58/66) for CTM group. In other infections, L-105 group showed 66. 7%(30/45) and CTM group 51. 2%(22/43). No significant defferences were ibserved in any comparison.
4. Incidence rates of side effects and abnormal laboratory test values were 1.5%(2/130) and 12.3% 14/144), respectively in L-105 group, whereas in CTM group they were 2.3%(3/129) and 12.7% 15/118), respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups. No serious side ffects or serious abnormal values were reported in either group.
5. As for the clinical utility of drug evaluated by attending surgeon to his patient the useful rates rere 52.3%(58/113) for L-105 group and 45.5%(50/110) for CTM group. In wound infection, L-105 roup showed 56.1%(37/68), and CTM group 547%(36/67). In other infections, the rates were 6.7%(21/45) for L-105 and 32.6%(14/43) for CTM group. In any comparison no significant difference were shown between the two drug groups.
From these results, L-105 was considered to be as useful a drug as CTM in the treatment of postoperative infections including postoperative wound infection.
