Literature DB >> 12709801

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of faropenem daloxate and cefuroxime axetil for the treatment of acute bacterial maxillary sinusitis in adults.

Ralf Siegert1, Olof Berg, Pierre Gehanno, Alberto Leiberman, Jonas Laimutis Martinkenas, Paul Nikolaidis, Pierre Arvis, Melody Alefelder, Peter Reimnitz.   

Abstract

In this multicentre, multinational, comparative, double-blind clinical trial, outpatients with both clinical signs and symptoms and radiographic evidence of acute sinusitis were randomly assigned to receive for 7 days either a twice-daily oral regimen of faropenem daloxate (300 mg) or a twice daily oral regimen of cefuroxime axetil (250 mg). Among 452 patients considered valid for clinical efficacy, faropenem daloxate treatment was found to be statistically equivalent to cefuroxime axetil (89.0% vs. 88.4%-95% CI=-5.2%; +6.4%) at the 7-16 days post-therapy assessment. At 28-35 days post-therapy, the continued clinical cure rate in the faropenem daloxate group was 92.6% and that for the cefuroxime axetil group was 94.9% (95% CI: -6.8%; +1.2%). A total of 148 organisms was obtained in 136 microbiologically valid patients (30.1%). The predominant causative organisms were Streptococcus pneumoniae (47.1%), Haemophilus influenzae (30.1%), Staphylococcus aureus (14.7%) and Moraxella catarrhalis (8.8%). The bacteriological success rate at the 7-16 days post-therapy evaluation was similar in both treatment groups: 91.5% and 90.8% in the faropenem daloxate and cefuroxime axetil groups, respectively (95% CI=-9.2%; +9.5%). Eradication or presumed eradication was detected for 97.3% and 96.3% of S. pneumoniae, 85.0% and 90.5% of H. influenzae, 88.9% and 90.9% of S. aureus and 100.0% and 83.3% of M. catarrhalis in faropenem daloxate and cefuroxime axetil recipients, respectively. At least one drug-related event was reported by 9.5% of the faropenem daloxate-treated patients and by 10.3% of those who received cefuroxime axetil. The most frequently reported drug-related events were diarrhoea (2.2% versus 2.9%), nausea/vomiting (1.5% vs. 0.7%), abdominal pain (0.7% vs 1.5%) and skin reactions (1.5% vs. 1.1%). Overall, faropenem daloxate was at least as effective clinically and bacteriologically as cefuroxime axetil and was well tolerated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12709801     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-002-0532-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  4 in total

1.  Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic assessment of faropenem in a lethal murine Bacillus anthracis inhalation postexposure prophylaxis model.

Authors:  Stanley C Gill; Christopher M Rubino; Jennifer Bassett; Lynda Miller; Paul G Ambrose; Sujata M Bhavnani; Amber Beaudry; Jinfang Li; Kimberly Clawson Stone; Ian Critchley; Nebojsa Janjic; Henry S Heine
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2010-02-09       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Activity of faropenem against middle ear fluid pathogens from children with acute otitis media in Costa Rica and Israel.

Authors:  Kimberley Clawson Stone; Ron Dagan; Adriano Arguedas; Eugene Leibovitz; Elaine Wang; Roger M Echols; Nebojsa Janjic; Ian A Critchley
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2007-03-26       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 3.  The prevalence of bacterial infection in acute rhinosinusitis: a Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Stephanie S Smith; Elisabeth H Ference; Charlesnika T Evans; Bruce K Tan; Robert C Kern; Rakesh K Chandra
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2014-09-17       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  National and regional assessment of antimicrobial resistance among community-acquired respiratory tract pathogens identified in a 2005-2006 U.S. Faropenem surveillance study.

Authors:  Ian A Critchley; Steven D Brown; Maria M Traczewski; Glenn S Tillotson; Nebojsa Janjic
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 5.191

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.