{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06414141414141414, 'fraction_numerical': 0.05656565656565657, 'mean_word_length': 4.397820163487738, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[A comparative study of cefepime for bacterial pneumonia].

The efficacy, safety and usefulness of cefepime (CFPM), a new cephem antibiotic, in bacterial pneumonia, were evaluated in a comparative study against ceftazidime (CAZ). Each drug was administered by intravenous drip infusion at a dose of 1.0 g (nominal potency) twice daily for 14 days, and the following results were obtained. 1. A total of 183 cases were enrolled in this study. Efficacy rates ("good" or better responses) as evaluated by the subcommittee were 90.3% (65/72) in the CFPM group and 94.0% (63/67) in the CAZ group, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. 2. Efficacy rates ("good" or better responses), as evaluated by attending physicians, (in the same bacterial pneumonia cases which were subjected to evaluation by the subcommittee) were 87.5% (63/72) in the CFPM group and 89.6% (60/67) in the CAZ group, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. 3. Bacteriologically, eradication rates were 96.9% (31/32) in the CFPM group and 96.7% (29/30) in the CAZ group with no significant difference between the 2 groups. 4. The incidence of side effects was 5.9% (5/85) in the CFPM group and 4.8% (4/84) in the CAZ group, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. No significant difference was also found between the 2 groups in the incidence of abnormal laboratory findings; 28.4% (23/81) of the case in the CFPM group and 34.1% (28/82) in the CAZ group. 5. As for overall usefulness of the drug in bacterial pneumonia cases, utility rates ("useful" or better evaluations) as evaluated by the subcommittee were 88.9% (64/72) in the CFPM group and 92.5% (62/67) in the CAZ group. The rates as evaluated by investigators (in cases judged as evaluable by the subcommittee) were 87.5% (63/72) and 85.1% (57/67), respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups. These results indicated that CFPM is very useful for the treatment of bacterial pneumonia.