Chest ACCP Career Connection
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Neu, H.
Right arrow Articles by Chick, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Neu, H.
Right arrow Articles by Chick, T.

Chest, Vol 104, 1393-1399, Copyright © 1993 by American College of Chest Physicians


ARTICLES

Efficacy and safety of clarithromycin compared to cefixime as outpatient treatment of lower respiratory tract infections

HC Neu and TW Chick
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York.

BACKGROUND: Clarithromycin is a new acid-stable, 14-membered macrolide active against many of the organisms responsible for lower respiratory tract infections. It has been administered to over 5,000 patients worldwide and has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and bacterial pneumonia when given twice daily (250 to 500 mg). Cefixime is an amino- thiazolyl cephalosporin with an extended spectrum of antibacterial activity inhibiting beta-lactamase-producing respiratory pathogens. It has a long half-life, allowing once-daily administration. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind multicenter study compared clarithromycin and cefixime as treatment for patients with community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections (n = 213). Patients had bacterial pneumonia (clarithromycin, 19 percent; cefixime, 21 percent) or acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis or asthmatic bronchitis (clarithromycin, 81 percent; cefixime, 79 percent). Patients received 500 mg of clarithromycin twice daily (n = 103) or 400 mg of cefixime once daily (n = 110) for 7 to 14 days. RESULTS: Clinical cure or improvement occurred in 86 percent of the clarithromycin-treated patients and 88 percent of the cefixime-treated patients. When only patients with identified infections with Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, or Streptococcus pneumoniae were considered, clinical success rates were 97 percent for clarithromycin and 96 percent for cefixime; the rate of bacteriologic eradication was 91 percent for clarithromycin and 90 percent for cefixime. Adverse events occurred in 29 percent of the clarithromycin-treated patients and 23 percent of the cefixime-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that clarithromycin and cefixime are effective treatments for pneumonia and acute bacterial exacerbations of bronchitis of mild to moderate severity caused by the most common infecting organisms.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the American College of Chest Physicians.