LABORATORY AND CLINICAL STUDY ON CEFETAMET PIVOXIL IN RESPIRATORY INFECTIONS

• Published in: CHEMOTHERAPY Vol. 38; no. Supplement1; pp. 185 - 192
• Main Authors: AKASHI, MITSUNOBU, SHIGENO, HIDEAKI, NASU, MASARU, IKUTA, MASUMI, TASHIRO, TAKAYOSHI, MIYAKO, HIROSHI, NAKAJIMA, MAYUMI, GOTO, JUN
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Japanese
• Published: Japanese Society of Chemotherapy 1990; 公益社団法人 日本化学療法学会
• Subjects: Cefetamet pivoxil; MIC; セフェム; 呼吸器感染症; 喀痰内移行
• ISSN: 0009-3165; 1884-5894
• DOI: 10.11250/chemotherapy1953.38.Supplement1_185

We evaluated cefetamet pivoxil (CEMT-PI), a newly developed cephem antibiotic of the ester type, for its antimicrobial activity in vitro and for its serum and sputum levels and clinical efficacy in patients with respiratory infections. The results were as follows. 1) Antimicrobial activity: the MICs of cefetamet (CEMT) against 918 strains (26 organisms) isolated from clinical specimens were measured and compared with those of cefaclor (CCL), cefixime (CFIX) and cefteram (CFTM). Against Gram-positive cocci, CEMT showed similar or slightly lower activity than other competitive antibiotics. Against Gram-negative rods, it showed almost the same activity as did CFIX and CFTM against intestinal bacteria, and superior activity to other competitive antibiotics against a glucose non-fermenting Gram-negative rod, Pseudomonas cepacia. 2) Serum and sputum levels: the time course of changes in serum and sputum levels of CEMT were measured in two patients with chronic bronchitis and one with bronchiectasis after a single oral administration of 500mg of CEMT-PI. The maximum serum levels were 5.4-6.2μg/ml at 2-3h after administration, and even at 8h they were 2.1-2.6μg/ml. The maximum sputum levels were 0.36-0.68, μg/ml at 4 7h after administration. The rate of the maximum sputum to the maximum serum level was 5.9-10.8%. 3) Clinical efficacy in respiratory infections.: we administered 500mg or 1000mg/day b.i.d. for 7-1 0 days to 9 patients: 2 with acute bronchitis, 1 with diffuse panbronchiolitis, and 6 with chronic bronchitis. The clinical response was excellent in 1, good in 4, fair in 3 and poor in 1.patient.No adverse reactions or abnormal laboratory findings were observed.