Pefloxacin versus ceftazidime in therapy of soft tissue infections in compromised patients.

Soft tissue infections in compromised patients are frequently caused by Gram-negative organisms and particularly by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. These pathogens are effectively eradicated by pefloxacin as well as by ceftazidime. The effectiveness and safety of these two agents were compared in a prospective randomized study in 67 patients with soft tissue infections. Underlying conditions included malignant diseases, diabetes mellitus and chronic renal failure. The infections included: post operative infection, septic foot, soft tissue abscess and cellulitis. Thirty-three patients were treated with intravenous ceftazidime for a mean duration of ten days. More than half the 34 patients given pefloxacin were treated only orally for a mean period of 13 days. The clinical and bacteriological outcomes were similar in both groups. There was clinical cure or improvement in 26 pefloxacin cases and in 23 ceftazidime cases, failure in six pefloxacin cases and in seven ceftazidime and relapse in two pefloxacin and in three ceftazidime patients. The bacteriological responses were eradication in 23 pefloxacin cases and in 22 ceftazidime cases, persistence in five pefloxacin cases and in six ceftazidime cases, relapse in one pefloxacin case and in none of the ceftazidime group, reinfection in four pefloxacin cases and in three ceftazidime cases and there was one unassessed patient in the pefloxacin group and two in the ceftazidime group. Nausea and vomiting occurred in three patients and elevation of liver enzymes in another patient; all side effects were observed only in the pefloxacin treated patients. These results suggest that oral pefloxacin could offer an alternative to intravenous ceftazidime in half the compromised patients with tissue infections. However, adverse reactions due to pefloxacin administration should be watched for during such therapy.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes