1993
DOI: 10.1378/chest.104.5.1387
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Cefpodoxime Proxetil and Cefaclor in the Treatment of Acute Exacerbation of COPD in Adults

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
4
0
1

Year Published

1996
1996
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
2
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Cefaclor has also been shown to be as effective as cefpodoxime proxetil in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 30 The current study is consistent with these results and demonstrates that cefaclor continues to be an effective agent in the treatment of AECB.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Cefaclor has also been shown to be as effective as cefpodoxime proxetil in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 30 The current study is consistent with these results and demonstrates that cefaclor continues to be an effective agent in the treatment of AECB.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…A study showed that with the most potent broad-spectrum antibiotics, the patients are likely to get the best benefit from early treatment, such as amoxicillin/clavulanate and respiratory fluoroquinolones [24]. Philips et al [25] studied either cefpodoxime proxetil (200 mg, bid) or cefaclor (250 mg, tid) regimen for 10 days in acute bacterial exacerbations of COPD and found that there were no statistically significant differences between the two drug regimens in the eradication of the initial pathogen (cefpodoxime, 91%; cefaclor, 92%) or end-of-therapy clinical response (cure and proved; cefpodoxime, 99%; cefaclor, 92%) rates for the evaluable patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, they generally suffer from such debilitating deficiencies that they are nearly uninterpretable, as a review of some relatively recent, but representative, trials reveals. [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81] They typically define the cause of an exacerbation by the presence, in any amount, of a potential "pathogen" in sputum cultures, rather than demanding that it achieve a certain concentration or predominance as assessed by quantitative (eg, colonies per milliliter of sputum) or semiquantitative (eg, heavy, medium, or light growth) criteria. Accordingly, a bacterium could be considered the "cause" of an exacerbation even if only a single colony of it grew.…”
Section: Trials Comparing Antibioticsmentioning
confidence: 99%