Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krumpe, P. E.
Right arrow Articles by Echols, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Krumpe, P. E.
Right arrow Articles by Echols, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (1999) 43, Suppl. A, 117-128
© 1999 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Intravenous and oral mono- or combination-therapy in the treatment of severe infections: ciprofloxacin versus standard antibiotic therapy

Peter E. Krumpea*, Stephen Cohnb, James Garreltesc, Julio Ramirezd, Holly Coultere, Daniel Haverstocke, Roger Echolse{dagger} and Ciprofloxacin Study Group,{dagger}

a Reno Veterans Medical Center, Reno, NV; b Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; c Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Wichita, KS; d University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; e Bayer Corporation, Pharmaceutical Division, West Haven, CT, USA

Five hundred and forty patients with severe infection were enrolled in a multicentre, prospective, randomized, non-blinded study to compare the efficacy and safety of iv ciprofloxacin with iv standard therapy. Five hundred and thirty-one patients received at least one dose of study drug for pneumonia (310), septicaemia (112) or skin and skin structure infection (109). Intravenous ciprofloxacin (400 mg, every 8 h) or iv ciprofloxacin (400 mg, every 8 h) plus a ß-lactam were compared with a standard monotherapy (ß-lactam) or combination (aminoglycoside plus a ß-lactam) therapy. Patients were treated parenterally for a minimum of 2 or 3 days, then at the discretion of the investigator could be switched to oral therapy (ciprofloxacin 750 mg, every 12 h or a standard oral therapy). Patients were randomized in the ratio of 2:1 for the ciprofloxacin and standard therapy treatment groups and stratified to monotherapy if the APACHE II score was <=20 or to combination therapy if the APACHE II score was 21- 29. Three hundred and ninety-five (74%) patients were valid for the efficacy analysis: these comprised 242 pneumonia (167 ciprofloxacin and 75 standard therapy), 70 septicaemia (47 ciprofloxacin and 23 standard therapy), and 83 skin infections (56 ciprofloxacin and 27 standard). The primary efficacy variable was clinical response and the secondary efficacy assessment was bacteriological response at the end of therapy (2 or 3 days after treatment). The mean duration of therapy for patients receiving only iv monotherapy or combination therapy was shorter (9- 10 days) than for patients receiving sequential iv/po therapy (14- 17 days). At the end of therapy, overall clinical resolution/improvement (success) for monotherapy was 138/166 (83%) for the ciprofloxacin group, compared with 74/87 (85%) for standard-treated patients (95% CI =-11.5% to 7.6%), and for combination therapy the response was 43/51 (84%) for the ciprofloxacin group and 14/20 (70%) for standard-treated patients (95% CI =-6.3% to 34.9%). For pneumonia, the most frequent infection treated, clinical success rates following monotherapy were 85% for ciprofloxacin and 83% for standard-treated patients and 83% for ciprofloxacin compared with 69% for standard-treated patients in the combination therapy group. Bacteriological eradication/presumed eradication following monotherapy was 85/102 (83%) for ciprofloxacin and 31/46 (67%) for standard-treated patients (95% CI = 1.6% to 30.3%), and that for combination therapy was 29/36 (81%) for ciprofloxacin and 7/10 (70%) for standard-treated patients (95% CI =-18.3% to 39.5%). Drug-related adverse events, primarily diarrhoea and nausea, were reported in 22% of ciprofloxacin-treated patients and 20% of standard-treated patients. In summary, ciprofloxacin administered alone or in combination was found to be effective in treating a wide range of severe infections.

* Corresponding address. Reno Veterans Medical Center, 1000 Locust Street, Reno, NV 89500, USA. Tel: +1-702-786-7200; Fax: +1-702-328-1769; E-mail JandP{at}smilen.reno.nv.us

{dagger} Current address. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford, CT, USA.

{ddagger} See acknowledgement section.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Mayo Clin Proc.Home page
M. E. Falagas, D. K. Matthaiou, and K. Z. Vardakas
Fluoroquinolones vs {beta}-Lactams for Empirical Treatment of Immunocompetent Patients With Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Mayo Clin. Proc., December 1, 2006; 81(12): 1553 - 1566.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
S. Mizunaga, T. Kamiyama, Y. Fukuda, M. Takahata, and J. Mitsuyama
Influence of inoculum size of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa on in vitro activities and in vivo efficacy of fluoroquinolones and carbapenems
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., July 1, 2005; 56(1): 91 - 96.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.