Literature DB >> 1643821

Cefoperazone versus ceftriaxone monotherapy of nosocomial pneumonia.

R J Mangi1, K M Peccerillo, J Ryan, C Berenson, T Greco, G Thornton, V T Andriole.   

Abstract

Ceftriaxone and cefoperazone monotherapy was compared in a multicentered, randomized, nonblinded, prospective study of patients with nosocomial pneumonia. These antibiotics were equally effective, with an overall successful treatment rate of 48 (80%) of 60 for the cefoperazone-treated patients and 35 (70%) of 50 for the ceftriaxone-treated patients. Patients with nursing-home-acquired pneumonia had similar bacterial pathogens and an almost identical cure rate to those patients with hospital-acquired infection. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of side effects of superinfections. The development of secondary pneumonia with resistant bacteria was low, 3% with cefoperazone and 4% with ceftriaxone. When antibiotic, administrative, and laboratory costs were calculated, cefoperazone was slightly less expensive than ceftriaxone. Both cefoperazone and ceftriaxone are effective therapy for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1643821     DOI: 10.1016/0732-8893(92)90086-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis        ISSN: 0732-8893            Impact factor:   2.803


  7 in total

1.  Cefepime versus ceftriaxone for empiric treatment of hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. The Cefepime Study Group.

Authors:  M Zervos; M Nelson
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Antibiotic treatment and survival of nursing home patients with lower respiratory tract infection: a cross-national analysis.

Authors:  Robin L Kruse; David R Mehr; Jenny T van der Steen; Marcel E Ooms; Richard W Madsen; Ashley K Sherman; Ralph B D'Agostino; Gerrit van der Wal; Miel W Ribbe
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  Cost-effectiveness of ceftriaxone 1 g vs second-generation cephalosporins in the treatment of pneumonia in general medical wards in Germany.

Authors:  E S Dietrich; U Joseph; F Vogel; S Howaldt; K H Kullmann; U Frank; F D Daschner
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.553

4.  Ceftriaxone. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in the treatment of serious infections.

Authors:  R Davis; H M Bryson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Ceftriaxone: an update of its use in the management of community-acquired and nosocomial infections.

Authors:  Harriet M Lamb; Douglas Ormrod; Lesley J Scott; David P Figgitt
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 9.546

6.  Effectiveness of cephalosporins in the sputum of patients with nosocomial bronchopneumonia.

Authors:  Almos Klekner; Kinga Bagyi; Laszlo Bognar; Attila Gaspar; Melinda Andrasi; Judit Szabo
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalized patients: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem-cilastatin. The Severe Pneumonia Study Group.

Authors:  M P Fink; D R Snydman; M S Niederman; K V Leeper; R H Johnson; S O Heard; R G Wunderink; J W Caldwell; J J Schentag; G A Siami
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 5.191

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.