These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Clinical evaluation of sustained release preparations of cefaclor in dental infections. Comparative double blind clinical studies of sustained release preparations with a regular preparation of cefaclor].
    Author: Horii M, Shimada S, Yamanaka H, Nishimura T, Noshi Y, Okada T, Sasaki T, Inaba O, Takada S, Kimura J.
    Journal: Jpn J Antibiot; 1985 Apr; 38(4):1117-40. PubMed ID: 3897614.
    Abstract:
    In vitro viable cell count studies of sustained release preparations of cefaclor (CCL) conclude that the mixture of nonenteric and enteric coated granules of CCL in the ratio of 4 to 6 is the most appropriate form (4:6 form) for the sustained release preparation of CCL. In order to clinically confirm the above conclusion, comparative double blind clinical studies of 3 mixtures forms (2:8, 4:6 and 6:4 forms) with a regular preparation (CCL form) were conducted in dental infections regarding efficacy, safety, and usefulness of the 4 forms. Evaluable cases for efficacy and usefulness were 364 in total (96 cases for the 2:8 form group, 89 cases for the 4:6 form group, 89 cases for the 6:4 form group, and 90 cases for the CCL form group). Evaluable cases for safety were 404 cases in total (102 for the 2:8 form, 100 for the 4:6 form, 102 for the 6:4 form, and 100 for the CCL form). Daily dose of the 3 forms of sustained release preparations was 375 mg b.i.d. after breakfast and dinner and that of the CCL form 250 mg t.i.d. after breakfast, lunch and dinner. Following are the results of the clinical studies: There were no significant differences among the 4 patient-groups (2:8 form, 4:6 form, 6:4 form, and CCL form) regarding background factors of the patients and findings of their subjective and objective symptoms before the initiation of the administration, and it was therefore confirmed that there were no problems in conducting the comparative double blind clinical studies. Overall clinical effective rate determined by the efficacy evaluation criteria of the Japanese society of oral surgery (JSOS) were 89.5% at day 3 and 94.8% at day 5 in the 2:8 form group, 87.4% at day 3 and 95.5% at day 5 in the 4:6 form group, 86.4% at day 3 and 91.0% at day 5 in the 6:4 form group, and 93.3% at day 3 and 96.7% at day 5 in the CCL form group. The effective rate determined by the physicians who actually treated the patients were 84.4% in the 2:8 form group, 87.6% in the 4:6 form group, 84.1% in the 6:4 form group, and 87.8% in the CCL form group. In both judgments by the efficacy evaluation criteria of JSOS and the physicians, there were no significant differences among the 4 forms regarding overall clinical efficacy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]