Efficacy and safety of cefoxitin in the treatment of chronic respiratory tract infections were compared with the respective findings of cefazolin by a well controlled comparative study. Cefoxitin (t. i. d.) and cefazolin (b.i.d.) were given at a dose of 2 g intravenously (either by one shot or drip infusion) for 14 days.
1. Patients subject to analysis: Of the 95 patients (cefoxitin group 47, cefazolin group 48) recruited in this trial, 89 patients (cefoxitin group 44, cefazolin group 45) were adopted by the committee members as eligible for evaluation of clinical and bacteriological efficacy as well as utility. Side effects of these drugs were evaluated in all of the above 95 patients. It was ascertained statisitically that the backgrounds of patients in the cefoxitin group and the cefazolin group were almost homogeneous.
2. Clinical efficacy: The number of patients observed with excellent efficacy in the cefoxitin group was larger than that in the cefazolin gorup, and the cefoxitin group was significantly superior to the cefazolin group in the overall efficacy (P<0.05); of the 44 patients treated with cefoxitin, ‘excellent’ in 16, ‘good’ in 20 ‘fair’ in 7 and ‘poor’ in 1 (efficacy rate 82%), and of the 45 patients treated with cefazolin, ‘excellent’ in 9, ‘good’ in 20, ‘fair’ in 11 and ‘poor’ in 5 (efficacy rate 64%). Especially, the cefoxitin group was superior to the cefazolin group in the efficacy for the patients with pulmonary infections, those with more than 2 underlying diseases, those with infections due to Gram negative rods, and others.
3. Degree of symptomatic improvement: The cefoxitin group was significantly superior to the cefazolin group in the degree of improvement in the property of sputum (on the 7 th day of the treatment), the colour of sputum (on the 3 rd day of the treatment), and the chest pain (on the 7 th day of the treatment)(P<0.05).
4. Bacteriological efficacy: The inhibition rate in the cefoxitin group was higher than that in the cefazolin group, but no significant difference was found between the cefoxitin group and the cefazolin group in their efficacy; of the 44 patients treated with cefoxitin, ‘eliminated’ in 24 ‘suppressed’ in 14, ‘unchanged’ in 5 and ‘replaced’ in 1 (inhibition rate 86%), and of the 45 patients treated with cefazolin, ‘eliminated’ in 21, ‘suppressed’ in 11, ‘unchanged’ in 11 and ‘replaced’ in 2 (inhibition rate 71%).
5. Side effects: Side effects including abnormal laboratory nnaings aue to tne meamation were observed in 9 patients (19%) of the 47 treated with cefoxitin and in 7 patients (15%) of the 48 treated with cefazolin, and there was no significant difference between the cefoxitin group and the cefazolin group in these incidences.
6. Utility: The utility rate in the cefoxitin group was higher than that in the cefazolin group, but no significant difference was found between the cefoxitin group and the cefazolin group in their utility; of the 44 patients treated with cefoxitin, ‘markedly useful’ in 15, ‘moderately useful’ in 18, ‘slightly useful’ in 9 and ‘useless’ in 2 (utility rate 75%), and of the 45 patients treated with cefa. solin, ‘markedly useful’ in 10, ‘moderately useful’ in 19, ‘slightly useful’ in 11, ‘useless’ in 3 and ‘markedly harmful’ in 2 (utility rate 64%).
The results stated in the above suggest that cefoxitin is a useful antibiotic for the treatment of chronic respiratory tract infections.
View full abstract