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 ISI Web of Science
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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Steer, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Parkhouse, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Steer, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Parkhouse, N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Vol 39, 383-392, Copyright © 1997 by The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Teicoplanin versus flucloxacillin in the treatment of infection following burns

JA Steer, RP Papini, AP Wilson, DA McGrouther and N Parkhouse
Department of Clinical Microbiology, University College London Hospitals, UK.

Antibiotic treatment of patients developing infection after burns is principally based on experience with other surgical patients. Few comparative trials have been performed in burns patients despite the altered pharmacokinetics of antibiotics and the high incidence of Gram- positive infection in the first week. A randomized trial was performed to compare the cure rates of presumed Gram-positive infection in burns patients given teicoplanin (6 mg/kg every 12 h for three doses then daily) or flucloxacillin (1 g every 6 h i.v./p.o.). Both groups received gentamicin if additional Gram-negative infection was thought likely. A total of 64 patients were entered into the study representing 65 episodes of treatment of which 55 were completed. Clinical success was achieved in 22 (73%) of 30 evaluable patients given teicoplanin and in 21 (68%) of 31 evaluable patients given flucloxacillin (not significant). Of 51 patients assessable for bacteriological efficacy, clearance was achieved in 15 (63%) of 24 patients given teicoplanin and in 15 (56%) of 27 patients given flucloxacillin (not significant). Serum trough concentrations of teicoplanin were 9 mg/L in five patients at the steady state. Adverse events were recorded in 15 (48%) of episodes in the teicoplanin group and in 14 (41%) of episodes in the flucloxacillin group. Teicoplanin demonstrated similar efficacy and safety to flucloxacillin with or without gentamicin.
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
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
C. B. Landersdorfer, C. M. J. Kirkpatrick, M. Kinzig-Schippers, J. B. Bulitta, U. Holzgrabe, G. L. Drusano, and F. Sorgel
Population Pharmacokinetics at Two Dose Levels and Pharmacodynamic Profiling of Flucloxacillin
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., September 1, 2007; 51(9): 3290 - 3297.
[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.