BACKGROUND/AIMS: Ciprofloxacin has been widely prescribed for acute infectious diarrhea. However, the resistance to this drug is increasing. Rifaximin is a novel but poorly absorbed rifamycin derivative. This study evaluated and compared the efficacies of rifaximin and ciprofloxacin for the treatment of acute infectious diarrhea. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled multicenter study in Korea. Patients with acute diarrhea were enrolled and randomized to receive rifaximin or ciprofloxacin for 3 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to last unformed stool (TLUS). Secondary endpoints were enteric wellness (reduction of at least 50% in the number of unformed stools during 24-hour postenrollment intervals), general wellness (subjective feeling of improvement), and proportion of patients with treatment failure. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analysis (n=143) showed no significant difference between the rifaximin and ciprofloxacin groups in the mean TLUS (36.1 hours vs 43.6 hours, p=0.163), enteric wellness (49% vs 57%, p=0.428), general wellness (67% vs 78%, p=0.189), or treatment failure rate (9% vs 12%, p=0.841). The adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that rifaximin is as safe and effective as ciprofloxacin in the treatment of acute infectious diarrhea.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Ciprofloxacin has been widely prescribed for acute infectious diarrhea. However, the resistance to this drug is increasing. Rifaximin is a novel but poorly absorbed rifamycin derivative. This study evaluated and compared the efficacies of rifaximin and ciprofloxacin for the treatment of acute infectious diarrhea. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled multicenter study in Korea. Patients with acute diarrhea were enrolled and randomized to receive rifaximin or ciprofloxacin for 3 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to last unformed stool (TLUS). Secondary endpoints were enteric wellness (reduction of at least 50% in the number of unformed stools during 24-hour postenrollment intervals), general wellness (subjective feeling of improvement), and proportion of patients with treatment failure. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analysis (n=143) showed no significant difference between the rifaximin and ciprofloxacin groups in the mean TLUS (36.1 hours vs 43.6 hours, p=0.163), enteric wellness (49% vs 57%, p=0.428), general wellness (67% vs 78%, p=0.189), or treatment failure rate (9% vs 12%, p=0.841). The adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that rifaximin is as safe and effective as ciprofloxacin in the treatment of acute infectious diarrhea.
Authors: J Ena; M M López-Perezagua; C Martínez-Peinado; M A Cia-Barrio; I Ruíz-López Journal: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 2.803
Authors: Y Chong; K Lee; Y J Park; D S Jeon; M H Lee; M Y Kim; C H Chang; E C Kim; N Y Lee; H S Kim; E S Kang; H C Cho; I K Paik; H S Lee; S J Jang; A J Park; Y J Cha; S H Kang; M H Lee; W Song; J H Shin Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 2.759
Authors: H L DuPont; Z D Jiang; C D Ericsson; J A Adachi; J J Mathewson; M W DuPont; E Palazzini; L M Riopel; D Ashley; F Martinez-Sandoval Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2001-10-23 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Ebbing Lautenbach; Neil O Fishman; Warren B Bilker; Analia Castiglioni; Joshua P Metlay; Paul H Edelstein; Brian L Strom Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-11-25
Authors: K E Smith; J M Besser; C W Hedberg; F T Leano; J B Bender; J H Wicklund; B P Johnson; K A Moore; M T Osterholm Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David N Taylor; A Louis Bourgeois; Charles D Ericsson; Robert Steffen; Zhi-Dong Jiang; Jane Halpern; Robert Haake; Herbert L Dupont Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 2.345