1. Academic Validation
  2. [A comparative study on the efficacies of ritipenem acoxil and cefotiam hexetil in bacterial pneumonia by the double-blind method]

[A comparative study on the efficacies of ritipenem acoxil and cefotiam hexetil in bacterial pneumonia by the double-blind method]

  • Jpn J Antibiot. 1996 Feb;49(2):144-74.
A Saito 1 M Sakamoto A Saito M Ohmichi Y Hiraga K Kikuchi Y Ohsaki N Sasaki H Matsumoto T Suda M Tsuzino Y Hirai H Inoue M Yoshida T Mouri H Kobayashi S Chiba T Ito K Moriya T Bando K Takeuchi Y Tanifuji K Shirato Y Tanno M Nakashima
Affiliations

Affiliation

  • 1 Department of General Internal Medicine, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
PMID: 8721077
Abstract

To objectively evaluate the efficacy, safety and usefulness of the newly developed penem oral Antibiotic, ritipenem acoxil (RIPM-AC), against Bacterial pneumonia, we conducted a multi-center double-blind comparative study using cefotiam hexetil (CTM-HE) as the control drug. Both RIPM-AC and CTM-HE were orally administered at 200 mg t.i.d. for 14 days, in principle. The results were as follows: The total number of patients enrolled in this trial was 208, of which 152 cases (RIPM-AC group: 73, CTM-HE group: 79) were evaluable for clinical efficacy. 1. The clinical efficacy rates (excellent + good) were 91.8% (67/73) in the RIPM-AC group and 94.9% (75/79) in the CMT-HE group. There was no significant difference between the two groups, and the clinical equivalency of RIPM-AC to CTM-HE was demonstrated. 2. In the patients enrolled in the evaluation of clinical efficacy, the eradication rates of the causative organisms were 84.6% (22/26) in the RIPM-AC group and 91.7% (22/24) in the CTM-HE group, with no significant difference between the two groups. 3. Side effects were noted in 9 cases (9.6%) of the RIPM-AC group and 5 cases (4.9%) of the CTM-HE group. Abnormal laboratory test findings were observed in 23 cases (26.7%) of the RIPM-AC group and 15 cases (15.6%) of the CTM-HE group. There was no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of side effects nor of abnormal laboratory test findings. In the safety evaluation, RIPM-AC was judged to be safe in 64 cases (68.1%) and CTM-HE in 82 cases (80.4%), with no significant difference. 4. The usefulness rates (markedly useful+useful) were 86.5% (64/74) in the RIPM-AC group and 92.5% (74/80) in the CTM-HE group. There was no significant difference between the two groups. Since RIPM-AC showed clinical efficacy similar to those of CTM-HE and posed no particular safety problems, it is expected to be a useful Antibiotic for the treatment of Bacterial pneumonia.

Figures
Products