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: [A comparative study of tazobactam/piperacillin and piperacillin in chronic respiratory tract infections]. Author: Oizumi K, Kawahara M, Kawaguchi S, Sigematsu H, Tanaka F, Sano N, Saito A, Hiraga Y, Ohmichi M, Inoue H. Journal: Jpn J Antibiot; 1995 Apr; 48(4):482-513. PubMed ID: 7783314. Abstract: The efficacy, safety and usefulness were evaluated for a combined antibiotic tazobactam/piperacillin (TAZ/PIPC) consisting of a new beta-lactamase inhibitor, tazobactam (TAZ), and a broad spectrum penicillin antibiotic, piperacillin (PIPC), in chronic respiratory tract infections with PIPC as the control in a multi-institutional comparative study. The drugs used were a preparation containing 0.5 g of TAZ and 2.0 g of PIPC per vial (TAZ/PIPC group) and a preparation containing 2.0 g of (PIPC group). The drugs were intravenously injected one vial at a time twice a day for 14 days as a rule. The following results were obtained: 1. Clinical effect There was no significant difference between TAZ/PIPC (86% or 76/88) and PIPC (81% or 69/85). 2. Bacteriological effect There was no significant difference between TAZ/PIPC (93% or 42/45) and PIPC (88% or 36/41) in terms of bacterial eradication rates. In 34 patients with beta-lactamase-producing pyogenic bacteria, there was no significant difference between TAZ/PIPC (77% or 10/13) and PIPC (88% or 15/17). 3. Degrees of improvement in clinical symptoms, signs and laboratory findings The TAZ/PIPC group was likely to show reductions in fever and the amount of sputum soon after administration. 4. Side effects Incidences of side effects were 7% (7/96) in the TAZ/PIPC group and 3% (3/89) in the PIPC group, showing no significant difference between the two groups. The main symptoms were allergic reaction and gastrointestinal symptoms. 5. Abnormal clinical laboratory test values The incidence was 17% (15/89) in the TAZ/PIPC group and 21% (18/87) in the PIPC group. The main symptoms were eosinophilia and hepatic dysfunction, and most of these symptoms were mild. 6. Usefulness The usefulness rates in the TAZ/PIPC group were 80% (71/89) and 78% (66/85) in the PIPC group, showing no significant difference. Thus, TAZ/PIPC exhibited excellent clinical effects and presented no troubles with safety. When comprehensively evaluated, TAZ/PIPC appears to be a very useful drug for the treatment of chronic respiratory tract infections.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]