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: [Cefroxadine].
    Author: Mashimo K.
    Journal: Jpn J Antibiot; 1982 Jun; 35(6):1365-73. PubMed ID: 6752462.
    Abstract:
    The antibacterial spectrum of cefroxadine was as wide as that of CEX, and its antibacterial effect was as strong as that of CEX or even 2-fold stronger against E. coli and Klebsiella. Cefroxadine was also proved to have stronger bactericidal or bacteriolytic effect than CEX and have better affinity with penicillin binding proteins. In clinical trials, an efficacy rate of 82.7% was achieved in a total of 2,009 cases of various infections analyzed. Cefroxadine displayed particularly good clinical and bacteriological effects for the infections of skin, soft tissues, respiratory tract and urinary tract. The rate of bacteria eradication in a total of 1,410 cases was 81.6%, showing good results against the bacteria such as S. aureus (83.9%, 167/199), E. coli (89.0%, 528/593), Klebsiella (78.0%, 78/100) and P. mirabilis (80.0%, 36/45). As for side effects, their incidence was a low of only 2.3%, the main ones being eruption and gastrointestinal symptoms just as recognized in conventional cephalosporins, and none of them was serious. Abnormal laboratory test values were only increases in eosinophil, S-GOT, S-GPT and Al-P values, and their incidence was low. From these findings, we may say that the drug is an effective, safe, and useful antibiotic among all other orally administered cephalosporins.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]