You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 148 No. 2, February 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Blinded Comparison of Cefuroxime to Cefaclor for Lower Respiratory Tract Infections

Charles J. Schleupner, MD; William C. Anthony, MD; James Tan, MD; Thomas M. File, MD; Patti Lifland, RN; William Craig, MD; Bennett Vogelman, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1988;148(2):343-348.


Abstract

• Cefuroxime axetil was compared with cefaclor for the therapy for lower respiratory tract infections. Sixty-one patients were randomized to receive the following drug dosages: (1) cefuroxime axetil, 250mg orally every 12 hours (21 patients); (2) cefuroxime axetil, 500 mg orally every 12 hours (21 patients); and (3) cefaclor, 500 mg orally every eight hours (19 patients). Of these 61 patients, 80% were male, with a mean age of 59.5 years; 56% had acute pneumonia, and the remainder had an acute bronchitis. Causative pathogens included typical respiratory tract pathogens. Overall, 23 of 27 patients with bronchitis were clinically cured at the end of therapy. Thirty-one of 34 pneumonias were clinically cured or improved at the end of therapy; the three pneumonia treatment failures occurred in the lower dose cefuroxime (n = 2) and cefaclor (n = 1) treatment groups. Overall, bacteriologic cure occurred in 86% of patients treated with 500 mg of cefuroxime axetil compared with 60% of cefaclor-treated patients. Adverse clinical effects were uncommon. From this study, it was concluded that cefuroxime given every 12 hours is at least as clinically efficacious as cefaclor; it is a new oral cephalosporin with pharmacologic and bacterial spectrum advantages over many older agents.

(Arch Intern Med 1988;148:343-348)



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine (Dr Schleupner) and the Infectious Diseases Section, Veterans Administration Medical Center (Dr Schleupner and Ms Lifland), Salem, Va; the Division of Infectious Diseases, Maryland General Hospital, Baltimore (Dr Anthony); the Department of Medicine (Dr Tan) and Infectious Diseases Section (Dr File), Akron (Ohio) City Hospital; the Infectious Diseases Subcouncil, Northeastern Universities College of Medicine, Akron, Ohio (Dr Tan); and the Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin and the Infectious Diseases Section, William S. Middleton Veterans Administration Medical Center, Madison, Wis (Drs Craig and Vogelman).


Footnotes

Accepted for publication Oct 21, 1987.

Presented at the 26th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, New Orleans, Oct 1, 1986. Also presented at an investigator's meeting sponsored by Glaxo Incorp, London, May 29, 1987.

Reprint requests to Infectious Diseases Section (111L), Veterans Administration Medical Center, Salem, VA 24153 (Dr Schleupner).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Levofloxacin versus cefuroxime axetil in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis: results of a randomized, double-blind study
Shah et al.
J Antimicrob Chemother 1999;43:529-539.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Use and Misuse of New Antibiotics: A Perspective
Joshi and Milfred
Arch Intern Med 1995;155:569-577.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1988 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.