Literature DB >> 4025384

Comparative toxicities of third-generation cephalosporins.

B R Meyers.   

Abstract

Data on the adverse effects experienced by 2,539 patients who received ceftazidime were compared with adverse effects reported with cefoperazone, cefotaxime, ceftizoxime, and moxalactam. There were 216 such reactions among the ceftazidime-treated patients; 158 patients (6.2 percent) had reactions that were possibly or probably drug-related. The clinical and laboratory safety profile of ceftazidime in regard to renal, hepatic, hematopoietic, and hemostatic parameters compared favorably with that of other third-generation cephalosporins. An increased serum creatinine level was observed in 0.8 percent of ceftazidime-treated patients, an increased blood urea nitrogen level in 1.6 percent, hepatic abnormalities in approximately 6 percent, diarrhea in 1.3 percent, pseudomembranous colitis in 0.12 percent, increased prothrombin time in 0.5 percent, and clinical bleeding in none. The incidence of colonization (3.8 percent) and superinfections (3 percent) associated with ceftazidime therapy was comparable to rates with other agents in this class.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4025384     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9343(85)90268-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med        ISSN: 0002-9343            Impact factor:   4.965


  17 in total

1.  Open, randomized comparison of pefloxacin and cefotaxime in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections.

Authors:  C Timmerman; I Hoepelman; J de Hond; T Boon; L Schreinemachers; H Mensink; J Verhoef
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1992 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.553

Review 2.  In patients allergic to penicillin, consider second and third generation cephalosporins for life threatening infections.

Authors:  Scott Pegler; Brendan Healy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-11-10

3.  Randomized prospective study of ceftazidime versus ceftazidime plus cephalothin in empiric treatment of febrile episodes in severely neutropenic patients.

Authors:  C S Verhagen; B de Pauw; T de Witte; J Janssen; K Williams; P de Mulder; T Bothof
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 4.  Cephalosporin utilisation review and evaluation.

Authors:  G M Misan; C Dollman; D R Shaw; N Burgess
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  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

6.  Meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intraabdominal infections requiring surgery.

Authors:  K Kanellakopoulou; H Giamarellou; P Papadothomakos; H Tsipras; J Chloroyiannis; R Theakou; P Sfikakis
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 3.267

7.  Cefotaxime desensitization.

Authors:  G Papakonstantinou; J R Bogner; F Hofmeister; R Hehlmann
Journal:  Clin Investig       Date:  1993-02

Review 8.  Adverse effects of newer cephalosporins. An update.

Authors:  J W Thompson; R F Jacobs
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 9.  Drug utilisation review (DUR) of the third generation cephalosporins. Focus on ceftriaxone, ceftazidime and cefotaxime.

Authors:  A Adu; C L Armour
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 9.546

10.  Ceftazidime sodium carbonate versus ceftazidime arginine as empirical monotherapy in febrile neutropenic patients.

Authors:  C Verhagen; B E De Pauw; K J Williams; W Du Bois
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 3.267

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.