Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Ceftizoxime vs. cefotaxime--a comparative randomized multicenter study.

S Segev1, R Kitzes, E Rubinstein

  • 1Infectious Diseases Unit, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel.

Israel Journal of Medical Sciences
|August 1, 1988
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Detectability of a self-illuminating lifeline for self-escape in smoke conditions of an underground mine.

Lighting research & technology (London, England : 2001)·2024
Same author

Non-invasive method for assessment of inflammation.

Biomedical optics express·2023
Same author

Assessing anti-estrogenic effects of AHR ligands in primary human and rat endometrial epithelial cells.

Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.)·2020
Same author

Primary endometrial 3D co-cultures: A comparison between human and rat endometrium.

The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology·2019
Same author

GH3 and RC-4BC cell lines are not suitable as in vitro models to study prolactin modulation and AHR responsiveness in rat pituitary.

Molecular and cellular endocrinology·2019
Same author

JUNO, the receptor of sperm IZUMO1, is expressed by the human oocyte and is essential for human fertilisation.

Human reproduction (Oxford, England)·2018
Same journal

Coronary revascularization versus conservative medical management for preoperative optimization of a patients with documented ischemic heart disease.

Israel journal of medical sciences·1998
Same journal

Primary biliary cirrhosis--association or overlap with other autoimmune diseases.

Israel journal of medical sciences·1998
Same journal

Complementary medicine--the problem and the challenge.

Israel journal of medical sciences·1998
Same journal

Electroencephalography in the evaluation of headache patients: a review.

Israel journal of medical sciences·1998
Same journal

Complementary medicine--a critical review.

Israel journal of medical sciences·1998
Same journal

The Israel Longitudinal Mortality Study--differential mortality in Israel 1983-1992: objectives, materials, methods and preliminary results.

Israel journal of medical sciences·1998
See all related articles

Ceftizoxime and cefotaxime demonstrate comparable efficacy in treating severe bacterial infections in hospitalized patients. Both antibiotics achieved high clinical cure rates and bacteriological eradication, with mild adverse events observed.

Area of Science:

  • Infectious Diseases
  • Pharmacology
  • Internal Medicine

Background:

  • Hospitalized patients often present with moderate to severe infections requiring effective antibiotic therapy.
  • Previous treatments with other antibiotics were ineffective in half of the study population, highlighting the need for potent antimicrobial agents.
  • Bacteremia, urinary tract infections, and pneumonias were common diagnoses among the study cohort.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of ceftizoxime versus cefotaxime in treating severe infections.
  • To evaluate the bacteriological eradication rates and adverse reaction profiles of the two intravenously administered antibiotics.

Main Methods:

  • A randomized trial involving 114 hospitalized patients with moderate or severe infections across four medical centers.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Patients received either ceftizoxime or cefotaxime intravenously at a dosage of 1 to 2 g every 8 hours.
  • Efficacy was assessed in 96 evaluable patients, with data collected on clinical outcomes, bacteriological eradication, and adverse events.

    • Main Results:

    • Both ceftizoxime and cefotaxime showed an overall clinical efficacy of 90%.
    • Efficacy in patients with bacteremia was 83% for both treatment groups.
    • A 95% bacteriological eradication rate was observed in both antibiotic groups, with 100% cure rates for urinary tract infections.

    Conclusions:

    • Ceftizoxime and cefotaxime are highly and equally effective in treating severe infections in hospitalized patients.
    • Adverse reactions were more frequent with cefotaxime (13.5%) compared to ceftizoxime (6.8%), although generally mild.
    • Superinfections occurred more frequently in the ceftizoxime group.