R Saginur1, G Garber, G Darling, S Shafran, W Cameron, G Jones, F Auclair. 1. Department of Medicine, Ottawa Civic Hospital; Department of Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital; University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario; Department of Surgery, Wellesley Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Medicine, University of Alberta Hospitals; University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of intravenous and oral ciprofloxacin and intravenous ceftazidime in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. DESIGN: Randomized, nonblinded, multicentre comparative trial. SETTING:Seven Canadian university hospitals. POPULATION: Adult patients with moderate to severe pneumonia developing 72 h or longer after hospitalization. METHODS: After informed consent was obtained, patients were randomized to receive intravenous ciprofloxacin 300 mg every 12 h or ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h. After three days, patients in the ciprofloxacin arm could be switched to oral ciprofloxacin, 750 mg every 12 h. Concomitant clindamycin was allowed for three days in patients with syndromes consistent with Gram-positive or anaerobic infection. Erythromycin could be used if cultures revealed no pathogen. RESULTS:A total of 149 patients were enrolled, of whom 124 were eligible for efficacy analysis. Of 119 pathogens identified in 87 patients, 84 were Gram-negative, and 35 Gram-positive. The mean duration of ciprofloxacin therapy was 12.1 days, of which 9.2 days were given intravenously. Ceftazidime was given for a mean of 9.8 days. There was eradication or reduction of pathogens in 75.7% of ciprofloxacin patients and 70.6% of the ceftazidime group. Clinical resolution or improvement occurred in 87.1% of ciprofloxacin recipients and 87.3% of the ceftazidime group. Eight ciprofloxacin and six ceftazidime patients died. Overall outcomes were considered to be successful in 85.2% of ciprofloxacin patients and 87.1% of ceftazidime recipients. Adverse events were mild. CONCLUSIONS: There were similar efficacy and safety of intravenous and oral ciprofloxacin and intravenous ceftazidime in the treatment of patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia. Physicians were reluctant to use oral therapy in patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of intravenous and oral ciprofloxacin and intravenous ceftazidime in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. DESIGN: Randomized, nonblinded, multicentre comparative trial. SETTING: Seven Canadian university hospitals. POPULATION: Adult patients with moderate to severe pneumonia developing 72 h or longer after hospitalization. METHODS: After informed consent was obtained, patients were randomized to receive intravenous ciprofloxacin 300 mg every 12 h or ceftazidime 2 g every 8 h. After three days, patients in the ciprofloxacin arm could be switched to oral ciprofloxacin, 750 mg every 12 h. Concomitant clindamycin was allowed for three days in patients with syndromes consistent with Gram-positive or anaerobic infection. Erythromycin could be used if cultures revealed no pathogen. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients were enrolled, of whom 124 were eligible for efficacy analysis. Of 119 pathogens identified in 87 patients, 84 were Gram-negative, and 35 Gram-positive. The mean duration of ciprofloxacin therapy was 12.1 days, of which 9.2 days were given intravenously. Ceftazidime was given for a mean of 9.8 days. There was eradication or reduction of pathogens in 75.7% of ciprofloxacinpatients and 70.6% of the ceftazidime group. Clinical resolution or improvement occurred in 87.1% of ciprofloxacin recipients and 87.3% of the ceftazidime group. Eight ciprofloxacin and six ceftazidimepatients died. Overall outcomes were considered to be successful in 85.2% of ciprofloxacinpatients and 87.1% of ceftazidime recipients. Adverse events were mild. CONCLUSIONS: There were similar efficacy and safety of intravenous and oral ciprofloxacin and intravenous ceftazidime in the treatment of patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia. Physicians were reluctant to use oral therapy in patients.
Authors: M P Fink; D R Snydman; M S Niederman; K V Leeper; R H Johnson; S O Heard; R G Wunderink; J W Caldwell; J J Schentag; G A Siami Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Andre C Kalil; Mark L Metersky; Michael Klompas; John Muscedere; Daniel A Sweeney; Lucy B Palmer; Lena M Napolitano; Naomi P O'Grady; John G Bartlett; Jordi Carratalà; Ali A El Solh; Santiago Ewig; Paul D Fey; Thomas M File; Marcos I Restrepo; Jason A Roberts; Grant W Waterer; Peggy Cruse; Shandra L Knight; Jan L Brozek Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Coleman Rotstein; Gerald Evans; Abraham Born; Ronald Grossman; R Bruce Light; Sheldon Magder; Barrie McTaggart; Karl Weiss; George G Zhanel Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: R G Masterton; A Galloway; G French; M Street; J Armstrong; E Brown; J Cleverley; P Dilworth; C Fry; A D Gascoigne; Alan Knox; Dilip Nathwani; Robert Spencer; Mark Wilcox Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2008-04-29 Impact factor: 5.790