Evidence Hub

Comparison of once-daily cephalosporin regimens for community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections in patients with chronic lung disease

McCabe RE, Schlossberg D, Donowitz GR, Scheld WM, Zellner SR, Lindenberg LB, Armstrong JH, Ein ME

Clinical therapeutics, 1989

118 participants

Abstract

The efficacy of cefonicid and of ceftriaxone, administered once daily for the treatment of lower respiratory tract bacterial infections (pneumonia or bronchitis), was evaluated and compared in 118 patients with chronic lung disease. The patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 gm of either drug, intravenously or intramuscularly, daily for three to 11 days (mean, seven days). Pathogenic bacteria were isolated from sputum in 59% of patients; Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae predominated. Clinical cure or improvement was noted in 95% and 93% of patients treated with cefonicid and ceftriaxone, respectively, and bacteriologic cure or improvement in 69% and 81% (the differences were not significant). Side effects were infrequent and similar in the two treatment groups, except that diarrhea was more common in the ceftriaxone group (11%, versus 4.4% in the cefonicid group). It is concluded that patients with chronic lung disease who experience acute exacerbations associated with infection caused by H influenzae or S pneumoniae, or other susceptible organisms, can be effectively treated with once-daily administration of either cefonicid or ceftriaxone.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 118 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free