Cefoperazone versus cefamandole in the treatment of acute bacterial lower respiratory tract infections.
In a randomized comparative study, 113 patients were treated with cefoperazone or cefamandole for acute bacterial lower respiratory tract infections. Most patients had Streptococcus pneumoniae or Haemophilus influenzae infections, although five patients in the cefoperazone group had infections caused by other Gram-negative bacilli (two with Pseudomonas aeruginosa). The clinical responses and adverse effects were not significantly different between the two treatment groups. Satisfactory clinical responses occurred in 36/39 (92%) of evaluable patients in the cefoperazone group and 33/34 (97%) of evaluable patients treated with cefamandole. Two failures in the cefoperazone group were secondary to superinfection (Acinetobacter and Ps. aeruginosa). Bacteriological and symptomatic failure occurred in one patient with Ps. aeruginosa lung abscess treated with cefoperazone and in one patient with a polymicrobial empyema treated with cefamandole. The results of this study indicate that cefoperazone is safe and effective in the therapy of acute bacterial lower respiratory tract infections.
D000208:Acute Disease; D002435:Cefamandole / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D002438:Cefoperazone; D002511:Cephalosporins / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006801:Humans; D008826:Microbial Sensitivity Tests; D008875:Middle Aged; D012141:Respiratory Tract Infections / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000382:microbiology
D002511:Cephalosporins; D002435:Cefamandole; D002438:Cefoperazone