English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In an open randomized multicenter comparative study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of cefepime (CP; 2.0 g given intravenously every 12 h) and ceftazidime (CZ; 2.0 g given intravenously every 8 h) as initial treatment for adult patients with suspected serious bacterial infections. A total of 133 patients entered the study, of whom 114 were evaluable for clinical and microbiological response assessment: 56 received CP and 58 received CZ. About 50% (30 who received CP and 25 who received CZ) fulfilled the criteria of the sepsis syndrome. The treatment groups were comparable with respect to sex distribution, mean age, underlying diseases, treatment duration, APACHE II score, and type of infection. The most commonly cultured microorganisms were members of the family Enterobacteriaceae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus. The causative microorganisms were eradicated from 92% (37 of 40) of patients with a microbiologically documented infection who underwent treatment with CP; they were eradicated from 86% (42 to 49) of patients who received CZ. The responses of only clinically documented infections in the CP group were 90% (27 of 30 patients); in the CZ group they were 87% (26 of 30 patients). When patients fulfilled the criteria of the sepsis syndrome (septic shock excluded), the causative microorganisms were eradicated from 89% (16 of 18) of CP-treated patients and 86% (12 of 14) of CZ-treated patients. None of these differences was statistically significant. Mortality was the same in both groups (four patients in each group) and was not attributable to the study medication. In conclusion, CP is at least as effective and as safe as CZ, as initial antimicrobial therapy for suspected serious bacterial infections in nonneutropenic patients with or without the sepsis syndrome. CP has the additional advantage in that it can be given twice daily, which may lead to a decrease in hospital costs.

Cefepime compared with ceftazidime as initial therapy for serious bacterial infections and sepsis syndrome