Literature DB >> 3535661

Clinical comparison of piperacillin and cefoxitin in patients with bacteriologically confirmed infections.

R V McCloskey.   

Abstract

The objective of this double-blind study was to compare the efficacy and safety of piperacillin with that of cefoxitin in patients with bacterial infections. Seventy hospitalized patients were treated with intravenous piperacillin (18 g/day) or cefoxitin (12 g/day) for a mean period of 11.5 days. Multiple serious underlying conditions were present in 91% of the patients in both treatment groups. The infection sites were the respiratory, urinary, and gastrointestinal tracts, the skin and skin structures, and the bones. Among the patients with evaluated courses of therapy, 87% (20 of 23) of the patients in the piperacillin-treated group and 90% (19 of 21) of the cefoxitin-treated patients were cured or improved. Multiple sites of infection were present in 6 patients given piperacillin and in 11 patients given cefoxitin. Gram-negative aerobic bacteria were the most frequently isolated organisms (56% of isolates). In each treatment group, 91% of the pathogens were eradicated. Three piperacillin-treated patients (9%) and four cefoxitin-treated patients (11%) had adverse clinical effects related to therapy; most of the effects were moderate in intensity. In conclusion, both piperacillin and cefoxitin were clinically safe and effective antibiotics for the treatment of these patients, most of whom had severe underlying conditions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3535661      PMCID: PMC180558          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.30.3.354

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother        ISSN: 0066-4804            Impact factor:   5.191


  10 in total

1.  In vitro activity of piperacillin and other microbials on 491 bacterial isolates.

Authors:  D S Reeves
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1982-10-25

2.  Piperacillin therapy for serious bacterial infections.

Authors:  D J Winston; W Murphy; L S Young; W L Hewitt
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 4.965

3.  In vitro activity of mezlocillin and azlocillin compared with that of four other penicillins and two aminoglycosides.

Authors:  A L Barry; C Thornsberry; R N Jones; T L Gavan
Journal:  Cleve Clin Q       Date:  1980

4.  Comparative evaluation of piperacillin in vitro.

Authors:  G M Dickinson; T J Cleary; T A Hoffman
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1978-12       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Comparative study of parenteral piperacillin and cefoxitin in the treatment of surgical infections of the abdomen.

Authors:  A Z Najem; Z C Kaminski; C R Spillert; E J Lazaro
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1983-11

6.  Clinical evaluation of piperacillin.

Authors:  H Thadepalli; B Rao; D White; V T Bach
Journal:  Chemotherapy       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 2.544

7.  Clinical trial of piperacillin with acquisition of resistance by Pseudomonas and clinical relapse.

Authors:  G L Simon; D R Snydman; F P Tally; S L Gorbach
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1980-07       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  Piperacillin v Carbenicillin in the therapy for serious infections.

Authors:  R L Marier; C V Sanders; S Faro; A Janney; W W Williams; F Derks; K E Aldridge
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1982-10-25

9.  Clinical evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of piperacillin.

Authors:  B Lutz; W Mogabgab; B Holmes; B Pollock; R Beville
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections.

Authors:  R L Sweet; M O Robbie; M Ohm-Smith; W K Hadley
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1983-02-01       Impact factor: 8.661

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.