Literature DB >> 7787537

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for community acquired lower respiratory tract infection in a general hospital: open, randomised controlled trial.

R Chan1, L Hemeryck, M O'Regan, L Clancy, J Feely.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To see whether there is a difference in outcome between patients treated with oral and intravenous antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection.
DESIGN: Open controlled trial in patients admitted consecutively and randomised to treatment with either oral co-amoxiclav, intravenous followed by oral co-amoxiclav, or intravenous followed by oral cephalosporins.
SETTING: Large general hospital in Dublin. PATIENTS: 541 patients admitted for lower respiratory tract infection during one year. Patients represented 87% of admissions with the diagnosis and excluded those who were immunocompromised and patients with severe life threatening infection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cure, partial cure, extended antibiotic treatment, change of antibiotic, death, and cost and duration of hospital stay.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in clinical outcome or mortality (6%). However, patients randomised to oral co-amoxiclav had a significantly shorter hospital stay than the two groups given intravenous antibiotic (median 6 v 7 and 9 days respectively). In addition, oral antibiotics were cheaper, easier to administer, and if used routinely in the 800 or so patients admitted annually would lead to savings of around 176,000 pounds a year.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral antibiotics in community acquired lower respiratory tract infection are at least as efficacious as intraveous therapy. Their use reduces labour and equipment costs and may lead to earlier discharge from hospital.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7787537      PMCID: PMC2549744          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.310.6991.1360

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  13 in total

1.  Augmentin (intravenous then oral) compared with cefuroxime followed by cephalexin for chest infections in hospitalised patients.

Authors:  C O'Donovan; R Rudd; S O'Neill; M X Fitzgerald; W McNicholas; S G Flavell-Matts; F Howell; A McKenzie; J Whittaker
Journal:  Br J Clin Pract       Date:  1987-12

2.  Cannulas and junior doctors.

Authors:  A M Zalin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-11-18

3.  Use of antibiotics. A brief exposition of the problem and some tentative solutions.

Authors:  C M Kunin; T Tupasi; W A Craig
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1973-10       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  The rational and irrational use of systemic antimicrobial drugs.

Authors:  A W Roberts; J A Visconti
Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm       Date:  1972-10

5.  Antibiotic usage in seven community hospitals.

Authors:  W E Scheckler; J V Bennett
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1970-07-13       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Antibiotic use at Duke University Medical Center.

Authors:  M Castle; C M Wilfert; T R Cate; S Osterhout
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1977-06-27       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Antibiotic prescribing.

Authors:  J McConnell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-05-08       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  A study of antimicrobial misuse in a university hospital.

Authors:  D G Maki; A A Schuna
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  1978 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.378

9.  Antimicrobial misuse in patients with positive blood cultures.

Authors:  W C Dunagan; R S Woodward; G Medoff; J L Gray; E Casabar; M D Smith; C A Lawrenz; E Spitznagel
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 4.965

10.  Comparison of ceftriaxone with cefotaxime in serious chest infections.

Authors:  J H Reeves; G M Russell; J F Cade; M McDonald
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 9.410

View more
  15 in total

1.  BTS Guidelines for the Management of Community Acquired Pneumonia in Adults.

Authors: 
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 9.139

2.  Intravenous therapy.

Authors:  C Waitt; P Waitt; M Pirmohamed
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.401

3.  Empiric oral monotherapy for hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia: an idea whose time has come.

Authors:  B A Cunha
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2004-01-15       Impact factor: 3.267

4.  Full-course oral levofloxacin for treatment of hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

Authors:  V Erard; O Lamy; P-Y Bochud; J Bille; A Cometta; T Calandra
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2004-01-15       Impact factor: 3.267

5.  Oral versus intravenous antibiotics. Exclusion of sickest patients invalidates study.

Authors:  P Tsang
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-09

6.  Community acquired pneumonia in elderly people. Current British guidelines need revision.

Authors:  S J Wort; T R Rogers
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-06-06

7.  Modern Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Is It Cost-Effective and are Outcomes Acceptable?

Authors:  Dominik Mertz; Jennie Johnstone
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.725

8.  Improving the quality of pneumonia care that patients experience.

Authors:  Carol R Horowitz; Mark R Chassin
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2002-10-01       Impact factor: 4.965

Review 9.  Cost-effective treatment of lower respiratory tract infections.

Authors:  J C Garrelts; A M Herrington
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 10.  Cefpodoxime proxetil. An appraisal of its use in antibacterial cost-containment programmes, as stepdown and abbreviated therapy in respiratory tract infections.

Authors:  J A Balfour; P Benfield
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.