Randomized comparative trial with ampicillin/sulbactam versus cefamandole in the therapy of community acquired pneumonia

Williams, Debra; Perri, Mary Beth; Zervos, Marcus J.

doi:10.1007/bf01974603

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature review for the period 1981–2008 provided only 19 acceptable articles relevant to the antibiotic management of CAP 277 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 . [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [II] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] [Ib] The remainder were rejected for the following reasons: inadequately powered studies or a retrospective design,102 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 non-blinded/non-randomised studies,274 401 402 403 404 405 antibiotic not available in the UK or withdrawn,357 361 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 study population or management unrepresentative of normal clinical practice in the UK,377 442 …”

Section: Section 8 Antibiotic Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: update 2009

Lim

Baudouin²,

George³

et al. 2009

Thorax

1,163

1,073

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Section 8 Antibiotic Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: update 2009

Lim

Baudouin²,

George³

et al. 2009

Thorax

1,163

1,073

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, H. parainfluenzae is increasingly recognized as a pathogen in respiratory tract infections. Williams et al (28) found that H. parainfluenzae was the second-most prevalent organism isolated from their patients. Poirier (26) found H. parainfluenzae to be a target pathogen in his study of CAP patients being treated with clarithromycin or roxithromycin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies, however, have shown that other pathogens have become increasingly more significant (1,2,5,12,20). These include Haemophilus influenzae (15), Moraxella catarrhalis (10), Staphylococcus aureus (20), Haemophilus parainfluenzae (28), aerobic gram-negative bacilli (20), and viruses (3) as well as Legionella, Chlamydia, and Mycoplasma (10). However, in as many as 49 to 60% of the cases, the microbial etiology of the disease remains uncertain (3,10).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of cefdinir and cefaclor in treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

Drehobl¹,

Bianchi²,

Keyserling³

et al. 1997

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Six hundred ninety patients were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cefdinir with those of cefaclor in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Patients received either 10 days of treatment with cefdinir (n ‫؍‬ 347) at 300 mg twice daily or 10 days of treatment with cefaclor (n ‫؍‬ 343) at 500 mg three times daily. Microbiological assessments were performed on sputum specimens obtained at admission and at the two posttherapy visits, if available. Respiratory tract pathogens were isolated from 538 (78%) of 690 patient admission sputum specimens, with the predominant pathogens being Haemophilus parainfluenzae, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus. The microbiological eradication rates at the test-of-cure visit were 92% (238 of 260 pathogens) and 93% (245 of 264 pathogens) for the evaluable patients treated with cefdinir and cefaclor, respectively. A satisfactory clinical response (cure plus improvement) was achieved in 89% (166 of 187) and 86% (160 of 186) of the evaluable patients treated with cefdinir and cefaclor, respectively. Except for the incidence of diarrhea, adverse event rates while on treatment were equivalent between the two treatment groups. Diarrhea incidence during therapy was higher for patients treated with cefdinir (13.7%) than for patients treated with cefaclor (5.3%). These results indicate that cefdinir is effective and safe in the treatment of patients with pneumonia.

show abstract

“…Durante este período, los índices de resistencia de Klebsiella pneumoniae al espectro extendido de las cefalosporinas disminuyó signifi cativamente desde 62 a 42% 163 . Es de notar que los estudios que evalúan la efi cacia y seguridad de ampicilina/ sulbactam parenteral son escasos e incluyen un número limitado de pacientes 164 . Sin embargo, ampicilina/sulbactam se está utilizando en cierto grado en E.U.A.…”

Section: Grupo 2 (Crb-65: 1-3 Pacientes Hospitalizados En Sala Generunclassified

Neumonía aguda adquirida en la comunidad en adultos: Actualización de los lineamientos para el tratamiento antimicrobiano inicial basado en la evidencia local del Grupo de Trabajo de Sudamérica (ConsenSur II)

Bantar¹,

Curcio

Jasovich³

et al. 2010

Rev. chil. infectol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults is probably one of the infections affecting ambulatory patients for which the highest diversity of guidelines has been written worldwide. Most of them agree in that antimicrobial therapy should be initially tailored according to either the severity of the infection or the presence of comorbidities and the etiologic pathogen. Nevertheless, a great variability may be noted among the different countries in the selection of the primary choice in the antimicrobial agents, even for the cases considered as at a low-risk class. This fact may be due to the many microbial causes of CAP and specialties involved, as well as the different health-care systems effecting on the availability or cost of antibiotics. However, many countries or regions adopt some of the guidelines or design their own recommendations regardless of the local data, probably because of the scarcity of such data. This is the reason why we have developed a guideline for the initial treatment of CAP by 2002 upon the basis of several local evidences in South America (ConsenSur I). However, several issues deserve to be currently rediscussed as follows: certain clinical scores other than the Physiological Severity Index (PSI) have become more popular in clinical practice (i.e. CURB-65, CRB-65); some pathogens have emerged in the region, such as community-acquired methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) and Legionella spp; new evidences on the performance of the rapid test for the etiologic diagnosis in CAP have been reported (eg. urinary Legionella and pneumococcus antigens); new therapeutic considerations needs to be approached (i.e. dosage reformulation, duration of treatment, emergence of novel antibiotics and clinical impact of combined therapy). Like in the fi rst version of the ConsenSur (ConsenSur I), the various current guidelines have helped to organize and stratify the present proposal, ConsenSur II.

show abstract

Randomized comparative trial with ampicillin/sulbactam versus cefamandole in the therapy of community acquired pneumonia

Cited by 16 publications

References 28 publications

BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: update 2009

BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: update 2009

Comparison of cefdinir and cefaclor in treatment of community-acquired pneumonia

Neumonía aguda adquirida en la comunidad en adultos: Actualización de los lineamientos para el tratamiento antimicrobiano inicial basado en la evidencia local del Grupo de Trabajo de Sudamérica (ConsenSur II)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About