Prospective randomized comparison of mezlocillin therapy alone with combined ampicillin and gentamicin therapy for patients with cholangitis. Antibiotics in infections of the biliary tract. Ceftazidime monotherapy vs. ceftriaxone/tobramycin for serious hospital-acquired gram-negative infections. Antibiotic Study Group. Empiric treatment of hospital-acquired lower respiratory tract infections with meropenem or ceftazidime with tobramycin: a randomized study. Meropenem Lower Respiratory Infection Group. Treatment of serious urological infections with cefotaxime compared to ampicillin plus netilmicin. Cefotaxime (C) vs cefotaxime + amikacin (C + A) in the treatment of septicemia due to enterobacteria: a multicenter study. Efficacy, safety, and tolerance of piperacillin/tazobactam compared to co-amoxiclav plus an aminoglycoside in the treatment of severe pneumonia. Ceftazidime versus a combination of amikacin and ticarcillin in the treatment of severe infections. [Comparative clinical trial of cefoperazone versus ampicillin + tobramycin in severe bronchopulmonary and pleural infectious pathology]. Effectiveness of cloxacillin with and without gentamicin in short-term therapy for right-sided Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. A randomized, controlled trial. Ceftriaxone once daily for four weeks compared with ceftriaxone plus gentamicin once daily for two weeks for treatment of endocarditis due to penicillin-susceptible streptococci. Endocarditis Treatment Consortium Group. Ceftazidime versus aminoglycoside and (ureido)penicillin combination in the empirical treatment of serious infection. Cefotaxime is more effective than is ampicillin-tobramycin in cirrhotics with severe infections. Ceftazidime versus tobramycin-ticarcillin in the treatment of pneumonia and bacteremia. [Comparison of the efficacy of cefotaxime alone and the combination cefazolin-tobramycin in the treatment of enterobacterial septicemia]. A prospective randomized trial of ceftazidime versus netilmicin plus mezlocillin in the empirical therapy of presumed sepsis in cirrhotic patients. Cefoperazone compared with ampicillin plus tobramycin for severe biliary tract infections. Azlocillin versus azlocillin plus amikacin in the treatment of severe infections in intensive care unit patients. [Ceftriaxone or combined cefazolin-gentamicin for complicated urinary tract infections]. [Multicenter open randomized trial of meropenem in comparison to ceftazidime and amikacin used in combination in severe hospital infections]. Single or combination therapy of staphylococcal endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers. [Imipenem/cilastatin sodium alone or combined with amikacin sulfate in respiratory infections]. Effectiveness of mezlocillin and endotracheally administered sisomicin with or without parenteral sisomicin in the treatment of Gram-negative bronchopneumonia. Aminoglycosides do not improve the efficacy of cephalosporins for treatment of acute pyelonephritis in women. A comparative study of two antibiotic regimens for the treatment of operative site infections. Randomized comparison of ceftriaxone versus ceftriaxone plus amikacin for the empirical treatment of infections in patients with altered host defense: microbiological and clinical evaluation. Therapy of staphylococcal infections with cefamandole or vancomycin alone or with a combination of cefamandole and tobramycin. [Efficacy and costs of treatment with ceftriaxone compared to ampicillin-gentamycin in acute pyelonephritis]. A randomized trial of three antibiotic regimens for the treatment of pyelonephritis in pregnancy. Randomized multicenter clinical trial with imipenem/cilastatin versus cefotaxime/gentamicin in the treatment of patients with non-life-threatening infections. German and Austrian Imipenem/Cilastatin Study Group. Cefepime for infections of the biliary tract. [Prospective, randomized, controlled study of imipenem-cilastatin versus cefotaxime-amikacin in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infection and septicemia at intensive care units]. Treatment of infections in hospitalized patients with ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid. A comparative study. A prospective randomised comparison of cefotaxime vs. netilmicin vs. cefotaxime plus netilmicin in the treatment of hospitalised patients with serious sepsis. Empirical monotherapy with meropenem in serious bacterial infections. Meropenem Study Group. [Clinical evaluation of ceftazidime and the combined administration of cefotaxime and tobramycin in the treatment of urinary tract infections. Prospective and randomized studies]. Monotherapy with a broad-spectrum beta-lactam is as effective as its combination with an aminoglycoside in treatment of severe generalized peritonitis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. The Severe Generalized Peritonitis Study Group. Cefotaxime compared with nafcillin plus tobramycin for serious bacterial infections. A randomized, double-blind trial. A prospective randomized trial of ceftazidime versus cefazolin/tobramycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with pneumonia. A randomized, controlled trial of cefoperazone vs. cefamandole-tobramycin in the treatment of putative, severe infections with gram-negative bacilli. Imipenem/cilastatin as empirical treatment of severe infections in compromised patients. A randomized study of cefepime versus the combination of gentamicin and mezlocillin as an adjunct to surgical treatment in patients with acute cholecystitis. Ceftazidime versus tobramycin/ticarcillin in treating hospital acquired pneumonia and bacteremia. Combination antimicrobial therapy for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in patients addicted to parenteral drugs and in nonaddicts: A prospective study. Broad spectrum penicillin as an adequate therapy for acute cholangitis. Efficacy of meropenem as monotherapy in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Therapy with carbenicillin and gentamicin for patients with cancer and severe infections caused by gram-negative rods. Prospective randomized comparison of imipenem monotherapy with imipenem plus netilmicin for treatment of severe infections in nonneutropenic patients. Single-drug versus combination empirical therapy for gram-negative bacillary infections in febrile cancer patients with and without granulocytopenia. Effect of ampicillin, chloramphenicol, and penicillin-streptomycin in acute cholecystitis. [Clinical evaluation of combination therapy of sulbactam/cefoperazone and aminoglycoside in respiratory tract infections]. Meropenem versus cefuroxime plus gentamicin for treatment of serious infections in elderly patients. [Amoxicillin and clavulanic acid versus amoxicillin plus gentamicin in the empirical initial treatment of urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients]. Comparison of once daily ceftriaxone with gentamicin plus cefuroxime for treatment of serious bacterial infections.
Forty-six patients with cholangitis were randomized to receive therapy with mezlocillin sodium (24 patients) or a combination of ampicillin sodium--gentamicin sulfate (22 patients). The biliary concentration of mezlocillin was 112 times higher than that of ampicillin and 778 times higher than that of gentamicin. The ratio of the concentration in serum or bile over the minimum inhibitory concentration against aerobic gram-negative bacilli (therapeutic index) was higher for mezlocillin than for either ampicillin or gentamicin. Twenty (83%) of 24 patients were cured following mezlocillin therapy compared with 9 (41%) of 22 patients after ampicillin-gentamicin therapy. The 3 patients with superinfection were in the ampicillin-gentamicin arm of the study. Fewer toxic or adverse effects occurred in association with mezlocillin treatment than with ampicillin-gentamicin treatment. Mezlocillin therapy was more effective, less toxic, and less expensive than treatment with ampicillin and gentamicin for patients with cholangitis. The combination of a penicillin and an aminoglycoside has been recommended as the initial treatment of choice for patients with infections of the biliary tract. However, elderly, septic, patients with jaundice have a high incidence of renal problems. For this reason, amingolycoside treatment of these patients must be reevaluated as newer less nephrotoxic agents become available. We, therefore, performed a prospective, randomized trial of ampicillin plus tobramycin, cefoperazone and piperacillin in patients with biliary tract infections. During a 20 month period, 106 patients with acute cholecystitis (53) or cholangitis (53), or both, received one of these antibiotic regimens for a minimum of five days. In patients with acute cholecystitis, ampicillin plus tobramycin, cefoperazone and piperacillin had clinical cure rates of 85, 95 and 95 per cent, respectively. In patients with cholangitis, however, cure rates for the three regimens were 85, 56 (p less than 0.05 versus ampicillin plus tobramycin) and 60 per cent (not significant versus ampicillin plus tobramycin), respectively. Moreover, 13 per cent of the patients receiving cefoperazone had an increased prothrombin time and three of 39 patients receiving this antibiotic had clinical problems with bleeding. Nephrotoxicity was greatest in patients with cholangitis receiving ampicillin plus tobramycin, 10 per cent, as compared with 3 per cent in those who did not receive an aminoglycoside. This difference, however, was not statistically significant. It was concluded that piperacillin should be considered for antibiotic management of patients with acute cholecystitis and that further studies are necessary in patients with cholangitis to determine whether or not newer agents should replace penicillin and aminoglycoside combinations. We compared ceftazidime monotherapy with ceftriaxone/tobramycin in a prospective, randomized clinical trial that included 580 patients with serious hospital-acquired infections. One-half of the patients had an underlying disease with a rapidly or ultimately fatal prognosis; 40% were nursed in intensive care units. Clinical response among patients with pneumonia (73% in the ceftazidime group vs. 65% in the ceftriaxone/tobramycin group), septicemia (73% vs. 59%), and complicated urinary tract infections (80% vs. 76%) showed that there were no significant differences in efficacy between the two regimens. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most prevalent pathogen and was effectively eradicated by both treatments. The odds of bacteriologic cure with either study regimen were equal. Mortality was similar in both treatment groups. Ceftazidime monotherapy was not associated with a higher incidence of development of resistance or superinfection. Both regimens were well tolerated; no patients receiving ceftazidime evidenced nephrotoxicity, compared with nine who received the combination. We conclude that ceftazidime may be used as monotherapy in the empirical treatment of patients with serious nosocomial infections. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of intravenous empiric treatment with meropenem compared with ceftazidime-tobramycin in patients with hospital-acquired lower respiratory tract infections.
                Prospective, nonblind, randomized trial.
                Multicenter trial conducted at 22 centers.
                Two hundred eleven patients were enrolled and 121 were evaluable for the analysis of both clinical and bacteriologic efficacy.
                One hundred four patients were randomized to receive intravenous meropenem (1000 mg) every 8 hrs and 107 patients were randomized to receive intravenous ceftazidime (2000 mg) plus tobramycin (1 mg/kg) every 8 hrs. Sixty-three meropenem-treated patients and 58 ceftazidime-tobramycin-treated patients were eligible for the analysis of clinical and bacteriologic efficacy. In the ceftazidime-tobramycin group, 32 (55%) evaluable patients received more than six doses of tobramycin, 24 (41%) received six doses or fewer, and two (3%) did not receive any tobramycin.
                The analysis of efficacy was based on the clinical and bacteriologic responses at the end of treatment. Satisfactory clinical responses occurred in 56 (89%) of 63 of the meropenem-treated patients and in 42 (72%) of 58 of the ceftazidime-tobramycin-treated patients (p = .04). Corresponding bacteriologic response rates were 89% and 67%, respectively (p = .006). The frequency and profile of drug-related adverse events was similar across treatment groups. Seizures were reported in three meropenem-treated patients, but these seizures were considered by the investigator to be unrelated to treatment.
                Meropenem is well tolerated and more efficacious than the combination of ceftazidime and tobramycin for the initial empiric treatment of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Fifty-nine patients with severe urinary tract infections were treated with either cefotaxime or ampicillin plus netilmicin in a controlled, open randomised study of the clinical and bacteriological effects. The patients responded favourably in both groups. The minimum inhibitory concentrations of cefotaxime against the isolates from blood were low for all bacterial strains except one (Streptococcus faecalis). Time to normalisation of temperature was significantly shorter in the cefotaxime group. The results suggest that cefotaxime is an effective and well-tolerated agent in the treatment of serious infections. However, the difference between the two groups was too small to allow preference of one procedure over the other. nan An open, randomized, multicenter study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of piperacillin/tazobactam and co-amoxiclav plus aminoglycoside in the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe community-acquired or nosocomial pneumonia. Of the 89 patients who entered the study, 84 (94%) were clinically evaluable. A favorable clinical response was observed in 90% of the piperacillin/ tazobactam group and in 84% of the co-amoxiclav/aminoglycoside group (not significant). The bacteriological efficacy was comparable in both groups (96% vs. 92%; not significant). There was only one fatal outcome in the piperacillin/tazobactam group compared to six in the co-amoxiclav/aminoglycoside group regimen (P=0.058). The adverse event rate was non-significantly lower in the piperacillin/ tazobactam group compared to the co-amoxiclav/aminoglycoside group (2% vs. 7%; P=0.32). Piperacillin/tazobactam is safe and highly efficacious in the treatment of serious pneumonia in hospitalized patients. It compares favorably with the combination of co-amoxiclav/aminoglycoside. Hospital patients with severe gram-negative bacterial infections were randomly assigned to treatment with ceftazidime (2 gm every eight or 12 hours) or a combination of amikacin (500 mg every 12 hours) and ticarcillin (3 gm every six or eight hours). The clinical and bacteriological responses to treatment were satisfactory in most of the patients in both treatment groups. Clinical cure was achieved in 18 of the 20 patients treated with ceftazidime and in 17 of the 20 treated with amikacin-ticarcillin. The bacterial eradication rate was 19 of 21 pathogens in the ceftazidime group and 17 of 20 pathogens in the amikacin-ticarcillin group. This study involved an open trial with parallel randomised series receiving either cefoperazone (2 g/d) or a combination of ampicillin (6 g/d) and tobramycin (3 to 4 mg/kg/d). The 30 patients included were of both sexes (male predominance), hospitalised, aged 62 +/- 11,5 years and suffering from a severe bronchopulmonary or pleural infection. Underlying pathology was serious (neoplasm, C.O.D.L., bronchiectasis, cardiac pathology). No significant difference was seen in the sampling of the two populations. Cefoperazone was prescribed in 2 infusions per 24 hours. Ampicillin was given as 3 infusions, followed by tobramycin administered by a similar number of injections. The duration of treatment was 16.8 +/- 9 days (cefoperazone) and 11,8 +/- 6,5 days (ampicillin + tobramycin). Overall evaluation (clinical, radiological and laboratory criteria) showed 88% (cefoperazone group) and 71% (ampicillin + tobramycin group) recovery and improvement rates. There were two failures in the cefoperazone group and 6 failures in the other group. These results were not statistically different. Three of the 6 failures could be attributed to resistance of the initial bacteria or selected by one or other type of treatment. None of the antibiotics prescribed raised any acceptability problems. It is often difficult to administer extended antibiotic therapy in the hospital for right-sided Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Although the effectiveness of single-drug therapy given for 4 to 6 weeks and that of two-drug therapy given for 2 weeks have been shown, no data are available on the effectiveness of short-course single-drug therapy.
                To compare the efficacy of cloxacillin alone with that of cloxacillin plus gentamicin for the 2-week treatment of right-sided S. aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users.
                Open, randomized study.
                An academic tertiary care hospital in Barcelona, Spain.
                90 consecutive intravenous drug users who had isolated tricuspid valve endocarditis caused by methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, had no allergy to study medications, and had no systemic infectious complications that required prolonged therapy. An efficacy subset consisted of 74 of these patients who did not meet an exclusion criterion.
                Cloxacillin (2 g intravenously every 4 hours for 14 days) alone or combined with gentamicin (1 mg/kg of body weight intravenously every 8 hours for 7 days).
                Clinical or microbiological evidence of active infection after 2 weeks of therapy, relapse of staphylococcal infection, or death.
                In an analysis of the efficacy subset, treatment was successful in 34 of the 38 patients who received cloxacillin alone (89% [95% CI, 75% to 97%]) and 31 of the 36 patients who received cloxacillin plus gentamicin (86% [CI, 71% to 95%]). Three patients died: one in the cloxacillin group and two in the combination therapy group. Of the 37 patients who completed 2-week treatment with cloxacillin, 34 (92%) were cured, and 3 (8%) needed prolonged treatment to cure the infection. Of the 34 patients who completed 2-week treatment with cloxacillin plus gentamicin, 32 (94%) were cured and 2 (6%) required treatment for 4 weeks. One patient in the combination group had relapse.
                A penicillinase-resistant penicillin used as single-agent therapy for 2 weeks was effective for most patients with isolated tricuspid endocarditis caused by methicillin-susceptible S. aureus. Adding gentamicin did not appear to provide any therapeutic advantages. Additional studies to confirm the therapeutic equivalence of short-course therapy with penicillinase-resistant penicillin alone and therapy with combined regimens are warranted. This randomized, multicenter, open-label study compared the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with 2 g of intravenous ceftriaxone once daily for 4 weeks with those of combination therapy with 2 g of intravenous ceftriaxone and 3 mg of intravenous gentamicin/kg once daily for 2 weeks as therapy for endocarditis due to penicillin-susceptible streptococci. Sixty-one patients were enrolled in the study. Clinical cure was observed for 51 evaluable patients both at termination of therapy and at the 3-month follow-up: 25 (96.2%) of 26 monotherapy recipients and 24 (96%) of 25 combination therapy recipients. Of the 23 patients in each treatment group who were microbiologically evaluable, 22 (95.7%) in each group were considered cured. No patient had evidence of relapse. Fourteen patients (27.5%) required cardiac surgery after initiation of treatment, including five monotherapy recipients and nine combination therapy recipients. Adverse effects were minimal in both treatment groups. We conclude that 2 g of ceftriaxone once daily for 4 weeks and 2 g of ceftriaxone in combination with 3 mg of gentamicin/kg once daily for 2 weeks are both effective and safe for the treatment of streptococcal endocarditis. Urgent treatment of serious infections with broad spectrum antibiotics usually starts before bacteriological evidence of the infective organism(s) becomes available. In this study 471 patients with a clinical diagnosis of sepsis were treated empirically with ceftazidime (CAZ) monotherapy (249 patients), or with an aminoglycoside+(ureido)penicillin combination (AG+PEN) (222 patients) to establish clinical outcome and bacteriological response. Up to 72 h post-treatment 94.5% of patients in the CAZ group and 93.8% in the AG+PEN group were treated successfully (treatment difference 0.7%, P < 0.01, 95% confidence interval -3.8%, 5.2%); 2-4 weeks after treatment neither regimen proved clinically superior. The differences in bacteriological response up to 72 h, and at 2-4 weeks after treatment, were 5.6% and 12.4% in favour of CAZ, however, these were not statistically significant. Overall, 56 patients reported 72 adverse events in the CAZ group, compared with 33 patients reporting 41 adverse events in the AG+PEN group. Deaths, 40 on CAZ and 21 on AG+PEN, were mainly related to their underlying condition. The two regimens were shown to be clinically equivalent in seriously ill patients treated empirically. We compared the effectiveness and incidence of nephrotoxicity of ampicillin-tobramycin and cefotaxime in 73 cirrhotics who had severe bacterial infection. Most of these patients had spontaneous peritonitis and/or bacteremia. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Group I included 36 patients treated with ampicillin-tobramycin and Group II comprised 37 patients treated with cefotaxime. Patients from both groups were similar with respect to clinical data, standard liver and renal function tests, types of infection and isolated organisms. Ninety-two per cent of bacteria isolated in Group I and 98% of those isolated in Group II were susceptible in vitro to ampicillin-tobramycin and to cefotaxime, respectively. Ampicillin-tobramycin cured the infection in 56% of Group I patients, and cefotaxime in 85% of Group II patients (p less than 0.02). Five patients treated with ampicillin-tobramycin, and none treated with cefotaxime developed superinfections (p = 0.024). Nephrotoxicity (impairment of renal function associated with an increase of urinary beta 2-microglobulin to over 2,000 micrograms per liter) occurred in two patients in Group I and none in Group II. These results suggest that broad-spectrum cephalosporins should be considered as first choice antibiotics in cirrhotic patients with severe infections. A prospective, randomized study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime with those of a combination of ticarcillin and tobramycin in the treatment of 40 nonneutropenic patients with pneumonia or bacteremia. Altogether, 93% of the patients receiving ceftazidime for pneumonia were cured, and 87% of those with bacteremia responded favorably. Of the subjects who were treated with ticarcillin and tobramycin ceftazidime developed significant superinfection, and one individual treated with the aminoglycoside and carboxypenicillin developed reversible azotemia. Ceftazidime appears to be as efficacious as the ticarcillin-tobramycin combination and is probably safer with regard to oto-and nephrotoxicity; however, superinfections did occur more frequently in the group treated with ceftazidime. In a prospective, randomized study we compared cefotaxime (C) with tobramycin plus cefazolin (C + T) in the treatment of Enterobacterial septicemia. Twenty-five patients received C and twenty two C + T. There are 8 treatment failures, in C + T group, 3 in C group. We observed 5 adverse effects, 2 in the C group (1 reversible collapse and 1 Pseudomonas aeruginosa superinfection) and 3 in the C + T group (acute renal failures). We conclude that C may be more effective and less toxic than cefazolin plus tobramycin for patients with Enterobacterial septicemia. Aminoglycosides are frequently used to treat sepsis in patients with liver disease. However, it has been suggested that cirrhotic patients are particularly sensitive to aminoglycoside-induced renal dysfunction. We investigated the efficacy and incidence of renal impairment with netilmicin plus mezlocillin compared with ceftazidime in 128 cirrhotic patients who required empirical treatment for sepsis. Renal impairment developed in 8 of 63 (13%) patients receiving netilmicin compared with 2 of 65 (3%) patients receiving ceftazidime (P < .05); it occurred despite regular monitoring of trough netilmicin levels. Renal impairment was present at the time of death in 1 of 13 (8%) patients treated with ceftazidime compared with 5 of 9 (56%) of the netilmicin patients (P < .05). Mortality rates were similar in the two groups (ceftazidime 20%, aminoglycoside 14%; P = NS). Renal dysfunction is significantly more frequent in cirrhotic patients treated with netilmicin but with careful attention to dosage and fluid management the clinical effect is likely to be relatively modest. In a prospective, randomized, multicenter study, the efficacy and safety of cefoperazone and the combination ampicillin-tobramycin as initial therapy for patients with severe acute biliary tract infections were compared. Of 77 patients initially entered in the study, definite severe biliary tract infection was confirmed in 67. Sixty-four patients completed treatment. At the end of treatment, 35 of 36 (97%) patients given cefoperazone and 23 of 28 (82%) given ampicillin-tobramycin were cured of their infection (P = 0.07). Pathogens were recovered from the bile in 32 patients; microbiological cures were observed in 18 of 19 (94%) patients receiving cefoperazone and 8 of 13 (62%) receiving ampicillin-tobramycin (P = 0.03). Thirteen patients had septicemia. None (0%) of the eight septicemic patients from the cefoperazone group, but two of five (40%) from the ampicillin-tobramycin group, were clinical failures. Of the isolated pathogens, 51% were resistant to ampicillin, while the resistance rate was 4% for tobramycin and 1% for cefoperazone (P less than 0.001). Biliary concentrations of cefoperazone were maintained at high levels--236 +/- 87 micrograms/ml up to 12 h after administration. Even in the presence of severe obstruction, cefoperazone levels in the bile and gallbladder wall were above MICs for most pathogens. Cefoperazone may be considered as an excellent alternative in the therapy of severe biliary tract infections. The authors wanted to verify if in clinical practice (Intensive Care Unit patients), the association of azlocillin with an aminoglycoside offers substantial advantages compared to use of azlocillin alone. Their results show that azlocillin alone is potent enough to be used in the treatment of severe infections. 40 seriously ill patients with complicated urinary tract infections were randomly assigned to receive either a single daily dose of ceftriaxone or combined therapy with cefazolin and gentamicin administered every 8 hours. The groups were of equal size, similar in age (both averaged 75 years) and the sex ratio was about 1:1 in each group. 32.5% had proven bacteremia and the overall mortality was 17.5%. Both regimens were similarly effective in terms of mortality, duration of fever (3.0-3.1 days), and sterilization of the urine prior to discharge from hospital. However, the single daily dose of ceftriaxone was much more convenient to administer. Clinical efficacy and tolerance of meropenem were estimated by comparison with those of ceftazidime and amikacin used in combination in the therapy of hospital infections of the lower respiratory tract, skin and soft tissues, intraabdominal and gynecologic infections, urinary tract infection and sepsis. 48 patients were given meropenem in a dose of 1 g every 8 hours for 3-14 days (the average of 9 days). 47 patients were subjected to the routine combined therapy: ceftazidime in a dose of 1 g every 8 hours and amikacin in a dose of 0.5 g every 12 hours for 2-14 days (the average of 9 days). The patient groups were comparable by the age, nature and severity of the infection and the condition (the mean APACHE II of 9.1 and 8.9). By the end of the treatment a positive clinical effect (recovery and improvement) was observed in 47 patients (97.9 per cent) treated with meropenem and in 41 patients (89.1 per cent) subjected to the combined therapy. The infection relapse within 4 weeks after the treatment completion was recorded in 3 patients in every group. Before the treatment 133 microbial strains were isolated from the patients. 121 of them were susceptible to meropenem (91.1 per cent), 111 to amikacin (83.4 per cent) and 90 to ceftazidime (67.7 per cent). The difference between meropenem and ceftazidime was significant (p = 0.0005). Eradication of the primary pathogens at the background of the meropenem therapy was stated in 41 out of 44 patients (93.2 per cent) and that of the combined therapy in 38 out of 43 patients (88.4 per cent). The microbiological relapse after the treatment completion was recorded in 3 and 2 patients, respectively. Side effects were observed in 8.3 per cent of the patients treated with meropenem and in 10.6 per cent of the patients subjected to the combined therapy. The trial results were indicative of the meropenem high efficacy and good tolerance and of the possible use of the drug in the monotherapy as an alternative of the routine combined therapy of severe hospital infections. Staphylococcus aureus is the commonest cause of acute endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers. In-vitro and in-vivo animal studies have found increased killing of organisms with the combination of a beta-lactam antibiotic and an aminoglycoside. These findings have created a controversy about the use of such combination therapy. We randomly treated 25 episodes of S. aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug abusers with either single or combination antibiotic regimens. Mean days to defervescence were similar in both groups: 6.3 d (SEM, 1.49 d) for the single drug group and 6.6 d (SEM, 1.02 d) for the group treated in combination with an aminoglycoside. There were no bacteriologic failures or relapses in either group. No patients needed valvular surgery, and the mortality rate was zero. Thus, it appears that single drug therapy with an appropriate beta-lactam antibiotic is adequate and appropriate in intravenous drug abusers with S. aureus endocarditis. In the present study, we used the envelope method to divide patients with respiratory infections into two groups: a monotherapy group given imipenem/cilastatin sodium (IPM/CS) and a combination therapy group given imipenem/cilastatin sodium plus amikacin sulfate (AMK). We then compared the clinical efficacy and safety between groups. 1. Safety was evaluated in 83 patients in the IPM/CS group and 88 in the IPM/CS + AMK group while clinical efficacy was evaluated in 77 and 80 patients in the respective groups. 2. The overall efficacy rate was 84.4% in the IPM/CS group. Among the main infections, the efficacy rates were 82.7% in 52 cases of pneumonia (including lung abscess), 100% in cases of infected bronchiectasis, 66.7% in six cases of secondary infection of chronic respiratory disease, and 100% in four cases of chronic bronchitis. The overall efficacy rate was 83.8% in the IPM/CS + AMK group. Among the main infections, the efficacy rates were 88.1% in 59 cases of pneumonia (including lung abscess), 83.3% in 12 cases of infected bronchiectasis, and 60.0% in five cases of secondary infection of chronic respiratory disease. No significant differences in efficacies were seen between groups. 3. In the IPM/CS group, the efficacy rates were 92.3% for patients without prior antibiotic therapy in the IPM/CS group and 68.0% for those with prior therapy; in the IPM/CS + AMK group, the respective rates were 83.7% and 83.9%. In the IPM/CS group, there was a significant difference in the responses of patients with and without prior antibiotic therapy (P < 0.05). 4. Side effects were observed in six patients in the IPM/CS group (7.2%) and two patients in the IPM/CS + AMK group (2.3%). Abnormal laboratory test results were noted in 5 patients in the IPM/CS group (6.0%) and in 10 in the IPM/CS + f1p4group (11.4%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects between groups and no severe adverse reactions in either group. These results indicate that IPM/CS alone produces of good response in moderate to severe respiratory infections while IPM/CS combined with AMK is useful in intractable respiratory infections. nan A prospective, coordinated, randomized multicentre trial was conducted to determine whether tobramycin 160 mg intravenously (i.v.) once daily for 2 days would improve the efficacy of cefotaxime 1 g i.v. twice daily for 2 days followed by a 10-day course of oral cefadroxil 1 g twice daily, in the treatment of community-acquired acute pyelonephritis in women. Of 73 patients enrolled in the study, 51 could be evaluated according to the protocol. There were no significant differences in bacteriological cure rates between the combined treatment with tobramycin/cefotaxime and cefotaxime alone, either at short-term follow-up (63.0% vs 59.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in proportions -23.4% to 31.2%), or up to 7 weeks after cessation of treatment (42.9% vs 52.2%; 95% CI, -18.0% to 36.6%). A modified intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in clinical efficacy between the two regimens (68.6% vs 69.2%; 95% CI, -22.9% to 24.1%). Tobramycin seemed to enhance the resolution of inflammation by a more rapid decline in C-reactive protein levels. The high recurrence rates after treatment with beta-lactam antibiotics in this and previous studies of acute pyelonephritis may be explained by adverse ecological effects rather than failure to eradicate the infection. This prospective study was designed to compare the relative efficacy of two antibiotic regimens for the treatment of operative site infections subsequent to pelvic operations. Patients with endomyoparametritis after delivery or pelvic cellulitis subsequent to hysterectomy were randomized to treatment with the combination of penicillin-gentamicin or the single agent cefoxitin. Seventeen of the 26 patients (65%) with endomyoparametritis who were treated with penicillin-gentamicin were cured by antibiotic therapy alone, in comparison to 15 of 23 (65%) patients treated with cefoxitin. Fifty-eight percent of the patients with pelvic cellulitis who were treated with penicillin-gentamicin responded favorably, in comparison to 50% of the patients treated with cefoxitin. None of these differences was statistically significant. In this study, neither antibiotic regimen provided satisfactory initial treatment for surgically induced soft tissue pelvic infection. Moreover, 11 of the 28 patients with treatment failures (40%) developed serious sequelae of their primary infection. Two hundred and eighty-four febrile episodes in immunocompromised patients were treated with ceftriaxone alone or in combination with amikacin. In the ceftriaxone-treated group, 60 out of 143 febrile episodes were microbiologically documented, while in the group receiving the combination therapy, there were 32 out of 140 (p = 0.0007). Gram-positive microorganisms were more common than gram-negative ones, accounting for 59 of the 101 isolated bacteria. The ceftriaxone regimen appeared to have a response rate comparable to the combination regimen (73.91 vs. 78.88%). Superinfections occurred under both regimens. Eighty adult patients with microbiologically demonstrated staphylococcal infections were included in a comparative trial of cefamandole and cefamandole plus tobramycin. Patients with cefamandole-resistant pathogens were treated with vancomycin, if the initial therapy consisted of cefamandole, but were continued on cefamandole plus tobramycin if already started on that combination. Of the patients infected with cefamandole-susceptible strains, 91% (20/22) responded favorably to treatment with cefamandole alone, and 88% (30/34) responded favorably to cefamandole plus tobramycin. Of the patients infected with cefamandole-resistant staphylococci, 70% (7/10) responded to treatment with cefamandole plus tobramycin, and 86% (12/14) responded to treatment with vancomycin, even though vancomycin therapy was started 24 to 48 h later than cefamandole-plus-tobramycin therapy. No major side effects were observed; however, cefamandole plus tobramycin was associated with a rise in the serum creatinine level in 11% (4/44) of the patients. The bactericidal activity of the serum in cefamandole-treated patients and in cefamandole-plus-tobramycin-treated patients was identical against cefamandole-susceptible strains. Against cefamandole-resistant strains, 87% of the vancomycin-containing sera were bactericidal at a dilution of 1:8, whereas only 57% of the cefamandole-plus-tobramycin-containing sera were active at that dilution. nan To compare the effectiveness of three antibiotic regimens for the treatment of acute pyelonephritis in pregnancy.
                One hundred seventy-nine pregnant women earlier than 24 weeks' gestation who had acute pyelonephritis were randomized to 1) intravenous (i.v.) ampicillin and gentamicin, 2) i.v. cefazolin, or 3) intramuscular ceftriaxone. All participants then completed 10-day courses of oral cephalexin after primary treatment. A urine culture was performed on admission and 5-14 days after completion of therapy. Surveillance for persistent or recurrent infection and obstetric complications continued until delivery. On the basis of a two-sided hypothesis test and with alpha = .025, 60 subjects were needed in each group for statistical power greater than 80% to detect a difference between ceftriaxone and other antibiotics if hospital length of stay differed by 1 or more days.
                The treatment groups were similar in age, parity, temperature, gestational age, and initial white blood cell count. There were no statistically significant differences in length of hospitalization, hours until becoming afebrile, days until resolution of costovertebral angle tenderness, or infecting organism. There were no statistically significant differences in birth outcomes between the three groups. The average (standard deviation) age at delivery was 38.8 +/- 3.6 weeks. The average birth weight was 3274 +/- 523 g. Eleven (6.9%) of 159 subjects delivered prematurely. Escherichia coli was the most common uropathogen isolated (137 of 179, 76.5%). Blood cultures were positive for organisms in 15 cases (8.4%). At follow-up examination within 2 weeks of initial therapy, eight (5.0%) of 159 subjects had urine cultures positive for organisms. Ten women (6.3%) had cultures positive for organisms later in their antepartum course, and 10 other participants (6.3%) developed recurrent pyelonephritis.
                There are no significant differences in clinical response to antimicrobial therapy or birth outcomes among subjects treated with ampicillin and gentamicin, cefazolin, or ceftriaxone for acute pyelonephritis in pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation. In an open, controlled, randomized study the safety and efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin was compared with that of the combination cefotaxime/gentamicin (plus metronidazole in patients with suspected anaerobe infection) in the treatment of 337 patients from 12 German and 5 Austrian centers who had non-life-threatening infections. The evaluation was done on an intention-to-treat basis (i.e. all patients including protocol violators) and according to the protocol (144 patients in the imipenem/cilastatin group and 124 in the cefotaxime/gentamicin group). No significant differences were seen between the two treatment groups in terms of the clinical and bacteriological outcome. The frequency of infusion intolerance and thrombophlebitis was low in both groups (< 2%). The overall rate of adverse events was comparable in the two groups, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea being the most frequent events. Nephrotoxicity, indicated by an increase in serum creatinine, was significantly higher in the cefotaxime/gentamicin group. Imipenem/cilastatin was shown to be as effective as cefotaxime/gentamicin (metronidazole) and appears to be well tolerated. Antibiotic treatment of biliary tract infections is widely accepted. An open, prospective, randomized, multicenter trial comparing cefepime (2 grams every 12 hours) with gentamicin (1.5 milligrams per kilograms every eight hours) plus mezlocillin (3 grams every four hours) for a minimum of five days was undertaken. Of the 149 patients enrolled, 120 were evaluable; 80 were randomized to receive cefepime and 40 were randomized to receive gentamicin plus mezlocillin (two to one randomization schedule). The diagnosis was acute cholecystitis in 101 patients and acute cholangitis in the remainder. There were no differences between the two treatment groups with regard to gender, age, disease, signs and symptoms, admitting temperature or laboratory values. All patients (100 percent) treated with gentamicin and mezlocillin were cured of the infection, as were 78 (97.5 percent) of the patients treated with cefepime (difference not significant). The incidence and spectrum of adverse events and complications were similar between the two groups (8.8 percent for cefepime versus 10 percent for gentamicin and mezlocillin). Our data show that the efficacy and safety of cefepime administered every 12 hours is equivalent to that of gentamicin and mezlocillin combination for treating patients with acute infections of the biliary tract. In addition, twice-daily administration of cefepime may be more cost-effective than the aminoglycoside-based combination. In a multicentre, prospective, controlled trial 211 patients with suspected septicaemia or pneumonia were allocated at random to either imipenem-cilastatin 500 mg 8-hourly or cefotaxime 1 g 6-hourly combined with amikacin 5 mg/kg 8-hourly. The treatments were administered for at least 5 days. Seventy patients on imipenem and 70 patients on cefotaxime-amikacin were assessable for comparison. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in underlying pathology and in the clinical results obtained: septicaemia 20/26 patients of the imipenem group and 20/25 patients of the cefotaxime-amikacin group were cured; pneumonia 38/44 patients of the imipenem group and 34/45 patients of the cefotaxime-amikacin group were cured. There were also no differences in the initial organisms and in the bacteriological cure rate, except for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. At the moment, imipenem administered alone is as effective as the cefotaxime-amikacin combination in the treatment of septicaemia or pneumonia in intensive care patients, with the exception of P. aeruginosa pneumonia in patients under assisted ventilation. Ninety patients at the Wilmington Medical Center were enrolled in a comparative study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid in the treatment of a variety of infections. Forty-seven women with obstetric or gynecologic infections were randomly assigned to receive ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid or cefoxitin. Forty-three patients with gram-negative septicemia or lower respiratory tract infection were given ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid or tobramycin plus piperacillin in a randomized fashion. Of the 47 women with obstetric or gynecologic infections, 23 were randomly assigned to receive ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid, and 24 were randomly assigned to receive cefoxitin. Several patients in each group had underlying diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension. Of the 27 pathogens isolated in the group receiving ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid, 26 (96 percent) were eradicated, including all three ticarcillin-resistant pathogens. In the cefoxitin-treated group, 31 of the 33 (94 percent) pathogens were eliminated, including all four ticarcillin-resistant organisms. Three reinfections or superinfections occurred, and cefoxitin therapy failed to eliminate an enterococcus isolate from the endometrium in one patient. The clinical response in both treatment groups was excellent. Either cure or clinical improvement was achieved for all 18 sites of infection in the ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid-treated group and for all 22 sites in the cefoxitin-treated group. There were no systemic drug reactions in either treatment group. In one patient in the cefoxitin-treated group, local phlebitis developed at the infusion site. This reaction responded to local therapy. There were no local reactions among the patients receiving ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid. Of the 43 patients with gram-negative septicemia or lower respiratory tract infection, 21 were randomly assigned to receive ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid and 22 were assigned to receive tobramycin plus piperacillin. Thirty-six patients had gram-negative sepsis, and seven patients had lower respiratory tract infection. Nine of the 36 patients suspected of having gram-negative sepsis were not evaluable because no pathogen was isolated prior to treatment. Twenty-two of the 27 patients treated for septicemia had good clinical and microbiologic responses. Three of the seven patients with pneumonia were not evaluable. Of the four evaluable patients, two had pneumococcus pneumonia; one was treated with tobramycin plus piperacillin and one with ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid. In both instances, the clinical and bacteriologic responses were considered good. 93 patients were enrolled into a prospective randomised study to determine the efficacy and safety of netilmicin, cefotaxime or their combination in the treatment of sepsis caused by susceptible strains of Enterobacteriaceae or staphylococci. 83 patients were evaluable for safety, 74 for clinical efficacy and 63 for microbiological response including 36 patients (57%) with positive blood cultures. There were significantly more clinical failures with cefotaxime than with netilmicin even when urinary tract sepsis was excluded. Microbiological failures occurred more frequently in the cefotaxime arm and were associated with Klebsiella and Enterobacter spp. Four cefotaxime failures were subsequently successfully treated with netilmicin. More mixed infections were however enrolled by chance into the cefotaxime arm. The statistical difference between netilmicin and cefotaxime is not significant if mixed infections are excluded. There was no difference in efficacy between the netilmicin and combination groups although superinfection was seen in the latter group. The incidence of nephrotoxicity was greater in the netilmicin group but not significantly so. Only one minor case of ototoxicity was detected in the 41 patients receiving netilmicin who had serial audiograms. The results suggest that netilmicin is a more effective agent than cefotaxime for treating life-threatening infections with susceptible Enterobacteriaceae or staphylococci particularly with infections in non-urinary tract sites. If dosage of netilmicin is closely monitored by measuring serum concentrations, toxicity is minimal. A multicentre, open, randomised, parallel group study was carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of meropenem monotherapy versus the combination of ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of serious bacterial infections. Adult, hospitalised patients (n = 237) were included if they had infections at one or more of the following sites: lower respiratory tract (89 community-acquired; 84 hospital-acquired), urinary tract (59 complicated; 3 uncomplicated), skin and skin structures (n = 8), or septicaemia (n = 29). Patients were randomised to receive either iv meropenem (1 g every 8 h) as monotherapy or iv ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) plus iv amikacin (15 mg/kg/day in two or three divided doses). Meropenem had comparable clinical efficacy to ceftazidime plus amikacin in: community-acquired lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) (40/43, 93% vs 31/39, 79% cured or improved); hospital-acquired LRTI (30/37, 81% vs 23/32, 72%); septicaemia (10/12, 83% vs 16/17, 94%) and complicated urinary tract infection (UTI) (13/15, 87% vs 25/25, 100%). A similar proportion of patients in each treatment group experienced adverse events, the most frequent being transient elevations in serum transaminases. Seven patients in the meropenem group and eight patients in the ceftazidime plus amikacin group died during the study period from reasons unrelated to study medication, and seven patients (five meropenem, two ceftazidime plus amikacin) were withdrawn due to adverse events. Empirical monotherapy with meropenem is as well tolerated and as effective as the combination of ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of serious infections. nan In a randomized trial conducted in 35 centers, we compared the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin plus tazobactam (TAZ) alone (monotherapy [MT]) versus those of TAZ combined with amikacin (AMK) (combined therapy [CT]) for the treatment of severe generalized peritonitis (SGP). Primary analysis consisted of blind assessment by an independent committee of the failure rate 30 days after the end of treatment in the modified intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis (mITT) population. Of the 241 patients with suspected SGP randomized into the study, 227 were eligible for ITT analysis, including 204 (99 in the MT group and 105 in the CT group) with confirmed SGP (mITT population). A total of 159 patients were eligible for per-protocol (PP) analysis. The clinical failure rates were equivalent in the mITT and PP populations (MT versus CT): 56 versus 52%, (odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 90% confidence interval [CI] = 0. 6 to 1.27) for mITT and 49 versus 49% (OR = 1.03, 90% CI = 0.67 to 1. 59) for PP analysis. Mortality rates (ITT population, 19%; PP population, 21%) and overall adverse event rates (ITT population, 55%; PP population, 54%) were also similar. Six patients (three in MT group and three in the CT group) developed acute renal failure. In conclusion, the addition of AMK to TAZ does not seem to be necessary for the treatment of SGP, even after adjustment for the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) and type of SGP. In a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared cefotaxime with nafcillin plus tobramycin in the treatment of serious bacterial infections. Of 195 patients with suspected or proven infections who were not neutropenic, definite bacterial infections were identified in 81; 34 of 38 patients given cefotaxime and 26 of 43 given nafcillin plus tobramycin (p less than 0.01) responded to treatment. The difference in response rates occurred primarily in patients with rapidly fatal underlying disease or with an infection outside the urinary tract. A logistic regression analysis showed that treatment with cefotaxime was still associated with a higher response rate after adjusting for several potential confounding factors. Among patients treated for 3 days or more, our criteria for nephrotoxicity were met in 2 of 68 (2.9%) given cefotaxime and 16 of 57 (28.1%) given nafcillin plus tobramycin (p less than 0.001). Prolongation of the prothrombin time and enterococcal colonization did not occur more frequently with cefotaxime. We conclude that cefotaxime may be more effective and less toxic than nafcillin plus tobramycin for patients with serious bacterial infections. Ceftazidime and cefazolin/tobramycin were compared in the treatment of hospitalized patients with pneumonia. Iv doses 8-hourly were: ceftazidime--2 g, cefazolin--1.5 g, tobramycin--1.7 mg/kg. For patients with pseudomonas infection randomized to cefazolin/tobramycin, ticarcillin (3 g iv 4-hourly) was used instead of cefazolin. One hundred and ten of 129 patients were evaluable (ceftazidime = 52, cefazolin/tobramycin = 58). Seventy five cases (68%) had documented pathogens of which 81% were aerobic Gram-negative bacilli. Analysis of clinical response showed no difference in overall results (P = 0.77), or separate outcomes: cured (P = 0.85), improved (P = 0.62), failed (P = 0.53), or relapsed (P = 0.50). No differences in bacteriological response were noted either: eradication (P greater than 0.10), elimination with recurrence (P greater than 0.10), persistence (P greater than 0.10). The incidence of enterococcal and fungal colonization and superinfection was the same for both regimens. There was a greater incidence of Coombs' test positivity with ceftazidime (P less than 0.01) but greater nephrotoxicity with cefazolin/tobramycin (P less than 0.02). Ceftazidime appears to be as efficacious as cefazolin/tobramycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with pneumonia, and is less nephrotoxic. Cefoperazone was compared with the combination of cefamandole and tobramycin in a prospective, randomized study of putative, severe, gram-negative bacillary infections. We attempted to exclude patients with granulocytopenia or infections due to Pseudomonas species. A total of 118 isolates (94 gram-negative bacilli and 24 gram-positive cocci) caused infection in 99 of the 120 patients studied. Cefoperazone (16 micrograms/ml) was active against 93% of the organisms tested; cefamandole (16 micrograms/ml) and/or tobramycin (4 micrograms/ml) was active against 95%. Infection was cured or improved in 77% of cefoperazone-treated patients and 81% of cefamandole-tobramycin-treated patients. Bacteremia was cured or improved in 61% of cefoperazone-treated patients and in 63% of cefamandole-tobramycin-treated patients. Adverse reactions included five cases of probable antibiotic-associated nephrotoxicity in the cefamandole-tobramycin group; there were no such cases in the cefoperazone group. One patient given cefoperazone plus eight other drugs became granulocytopenic, but the condition resolved when all medications were stopped. This analysis suggests that cefoperazone alone may be as effective as cefamandole plus tobramycin in the treatment of severe infections with gram-negative bacilli and is less nephrotoxic. The role of cefoperazone in patients with granulocytopenia or infections due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa was not evaluated. Imipenem/cilastatin was administered as empirical treatment to 22 patients with severe infections, at dosages of 2 or 4 g/day, either alone or in combination with an aminoglycoside. The majority of patients had underlying diseases causing various degrees of immune system dysfunction. The overall cure rate was 77.2%, without significant differences according to the type of pathogen or dosage schedule; however one of the two observed failures was due to a resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Strains recovered from improved patients were all sensitive to the drug. Only mild adverse effects were evidenced, without any alteration of laboratory parameters. Imipenem/cilastatin may be useful as monotherapy in empirical treatment of severe infections in compromised patients. In patients with acute cholecystitis, antibiotics are used as an adjunct to cholecystectomy to reduce the incidence of postoperative septic complications thought to be related to bactibilia. Combinations of penicillins, or cephalosporins or aminoglycosides, or both, are often used. Cefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin with excellent activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, including Pseudomonas species. It has a prolonged serum half-life, allowing twice-daily dosing, and is not nephrotoxic. This study was undertaken to determine whether or not cefepime was as effective as the combination of gentamicin and mezlocillin in patients with acute cholecystitis. One hundred and forty-nine patients were randomized, two to one, to receive cefepime or gentamicin and mezlocillin. Cefepime was given intravenously at 2 grams every 12 hours; gentamicin, 1.0 to 1.5 milligrams per kilograms every eight hours, and mezlocillin, 3 to 4 grams every four to six hours. All patients underwent cholecystectomy. Bile cultures were obtained, and concentrations of cefepime in blood, bile, peritoneal fluid and gallbladder were determined in a subset of patients. There were 56 evaluable cefepime-treated and 34 evaluable gentamicin and mezlocillin-treated patients. Bactibilia was present in 17 of 56 cefepime-treated patients (30.4 percent) and ten of 34 gentamicin and mezlocillin-treated patients (29.4 percent). Enterococci were recovered in six cefepime-treated patients. Clinical and bacteriologic responses were similar for the cefepime-treated and gentamicin and mezlocillin-treated groups, with one failure in each group, a wound infection in a patient receiving cefepime and a subhepatic abscess in a patients receiving gentamicin and mezlocillin. Other measures of outcome, such as the number of days of fever, days nothing by mouth, days of hospitalization and days of antibiotic therapy were similar in both groups. Cefepime, with every 12 hour dosing, achieved extremely high concentrations in all tissues assayed at the time of the operation, a mean of eight hours after administration. Adverse clinical events were similar in both treatment groups. Cefepime is as effective as gentamicin and mezlocillin in preventing septic complications after cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Cefepime requires fewer doses, does not require drug monitoring, is not associated with nephrotoxicity and may therefore prove to be a cost-effective alternative to combination therapy that uses an aminoglycoside. Thirty-five patients in a neurosurgical intensive care unit who had nosocomial pneumonia and bacteremia were randomly assigned to receive either ceftazidime (Cef) or the combination of ticarcillin and pharmacokinetically adjusted doses of tobramycin (T/T). Fifteen of 17 patients (88%) who received Cef were cured or improved compared to 15 of 18 (83%) who received T/T. The original pathogen was eradicated from the respiratory secretion in 10 of 15 patients receiving Cef compared to only 6 of 18 patients receiving T/T (p = 0.12). All patients in both treatment groups who had positive blood cultures cleared the organism from the bloodstream. No cases of drug toxicity, including renal toxicity, were seen in either group. Cef used as a single agent in nosocomial pneumonias and bacteremias performed at least as well as T/T. Single (nafcillin for 6 weeks) and combined (nafcillin for 6 weeks plus gentamicin for 2 weeks) drug regimens were compared in two separate multicenter prospective randomized trials. Forty-eight parenteral drug addicts and 30 nonaddicts with clinically and bacteriologically documented Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis were studied. In the addicts, combined therapy effected a more rapid mean clinical response (defervescence and normalization of leukocyte count) and a reduced duration of bacteremia in patients with right-sided endocarditis. In the nonaddicts, combined therapy effected more rapid clearance of bacteremia, but was associated with a higher incidence of azotemia. The addition of gentamicin did not alter morbidity or mortality in either group. In a previous study of patients with acute cholecystitis, we demonstrated equal efficacy with a broad spectrum penicillin (piperacillin) and a penicillin plus amino-glycoside combination. Whether a single agent broad spectrum penicillin is adequate treatment for more severe infections, such as acute cholangitis, however, is still unclear. We, therefore, conducted a three center, prospective, randomized trial to determine whether or not a broad spectrum penicillin alone is adequate therapy for patients with acute cholangitis. During a 36 month period, 96 patients with sepsis and biliary obstruction were randomly assigned to receive either piperacillin (n = 49) or ampicillin plus tobramycin (n = 47). The two groups receiving antibiotics were similar with respect to all clinical and laboratory parameters. The incidence of blood cultures with positive results (20 versus 21 per cent) and underlying malignant lesions (51 versus 62 per cent) was also similar between the two groups. The percentage of patients with a clinical cure or significant improvement was the same in the two groups (69 versus 70 per cent). However, there was a significant difference in the cure rate between patients with benign and malignant biliary obstructions (83 versus 59 per cent, p less than 0.01). No significant differences were noted between the two antibiotic groups with respect to drug toxicity, but patients with malignant conditions were more prone to antibiotic related toxicities (2 versus 19 per cent, p less than 0.05). These data suggest that outcome of treatment in patients with acute cholangitis is similar with either a broad spectrum penicillin or a penicillin plus aminoglycoside combination and is dependent upon the nature of the biliary obstruction. We performed a prospective, open label, randomized study in intensive care unit patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) to determine the efficacy and safety of empiric intravenous (i.v.) meropenem monotherapy compared with the combination of ceftazidime plus amikacin. A total of 140 patients receiving mechanical ventilation and diagnosed with pneumonia were included in the study. Patients were randomized to receive either 1 g meropenem i.v. every 8 hours or 2 g ceftazidime i.v. every 8 hours plus 15 mg/kg amikacin daily, administered to patients with normal renal function as two daily doses. Satisfactory clinical responses (cure or improvement) were achieved at the end of treatment in 68.1% of meropenem-treated patients and 54.9% in the ceftazidime/amikacin-treated group (relative risk 1.25; 95% confidence interval >1.00, 1.55). When non-evaluable patients were excluded from the analysis, the satisfactory clinical response was 82.5% and 66.1% for the meropenem and ceftazidime/amikacin patients, respectively (p = 0.044). Logistic regression demonstrated that treatment with meropenem and both the basic traumatic and medical pathologies were significantly associated with a satisfactory response. Adverse events judged to be possibly or probably related to treatment were reported by seven (10.1%) patients in the meropenem group and by eight patients (11.3%) in the ceftazidime/amikacin group. The results of this study confirm that monotherapy with meropenem is well tolerated and provides superior efficacy to the conventional combination of ceftazidime and amikacin in combating VAP. nan Nosocomial pneumonia and sepsis, as well as severe diffuse peritonitis, must be treated early in order to prevent complications such as septic shock and organ dysfunctions. With the availability of new broad-spectrum and highly bactericidal antibiotics, the need of combining beta-lactams with aminoglycosides for the treatment of severe infections should be reassessed. A prospective randomized controlled study was performed to compare imipenem monotherapy with a combination of imipenem plus netilmicin in the empiric treatment of nosocomial pneumonia, nosocomial sepsis, and severe diffuse peritonitis. A total of 313 patients were enrolled, and 280 were assessable. The antibiotic treatment was successful in 113 of 142 patients (80%) given the monotherapy and in 119 of 138 patients (86%) given the combination (P = 0.19). The failure rates for the most important type of infection, i.e., pneumonia, were similar in the two groups, as well as the number of superinfections. While creatinine increase was associated with factors not related to antibiotic therapy for all eight patients of the monotherapy group, no factor other than the antibiotics could be found for 6 of the 14 cases of nephrotoxicity observed in the combination group (P = 0.014). Finally, the emergence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to imipenem occurred in 8 monotherapy patients and in 13 combination therapy patients. In conclusion, imipenem monotherapy appeared as effective as the combination of imipenem plus netilmicin for the treatment of severe infection. The addition of netilmicin increased nephrotoxicity, and it did not prevent the emergence of P. aeruginosa resistant to imipenem. Empirical therapy with cefoperazone was compared with cefoperazone plus amikacin in granulocytopenic and nongranulocytopenic febrile patients. In nonneutropenic patients the overall response rate to cefoperazone was 88%; 10 of 12 gram-negative bacteremic patients were cured. Cefoperazone plus amikacin resulted in an 88% overall response rate and cured 14 of 15 patients with bacteremia. In neutropenic patients the overall response rate was 77% with cefoperazone alone and 73% with cefoperazone plus amikacin; the cure rates for gram-negative bacteremias were 8 of 11 and 6 of 12 patients, respectively. Our findings support the concept of single-drug empirical therapy with cefoperazone in febrile cancer patients, whether granulocytopenic or not, especially when gram-negative bacteremias are predominantly caused by Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species. The issue of Pseudomonas spp. and other more resistant pathogens needs further assessment with a larger number of patients. nan We compared clinical efficacy and safety of sulbactam/cefoperazone (SBT/CPZ) with those of SBT/CPZ combined with aminoglycoside (amikacin (AMK), tobramycin (TOB), etc.) in treatment of respiratory tract infections in patients with underlying respiratory diseases, with cancer, or with acute exacerbation of chronic respiratory infections. Clinical evaluations of monotherapy with SBT/CPZ in a total of 30 patients showed excellent results in 5, good results in 17. Clinical effects of combined therapy of SBT/CPZ plus different aminoglycosides in a total of 33 patients were excellent in 18, good in 5. The efficacy rates (excellent plus good) were 73.3% in the monotherapy and 69.7% in the combined therapy. AMK was used concomitantly with SBT/CPZ in 16 of 33 patients. Clinical effects of SBT/CPZ plus AMK were excellent in 10, good in 3, and the efficacy rate was 81.3%. Bacteriological effects were evaluable against 11 strains in the monotherapy group, and against 17 strains in the combined therapy group. The eradication rates were 54.5% in the monotherapy group, and 81.3% in the combination therapy group. Diarrhea was observed in a patient who received the monotherapy. Abnormal laboratory test results were observed on in 5 patients who received the monotherapy, and in 4 patients who received one of the combined therapies. All abnormalities disappeared after the completion or discontinuation of therapies. We considered SBT/CPZ combined with an aminoglycoside is a useful chemotherapy for respiratory tract infections in patients with underlying diseases and acute exacerbation of chronic respiratory tract infections. In this multicenter study, the efficacy of and tolerability for meropenem were compared with those for the combination of cefuroxime-gentamicin (+/- metronidazole) for the treatment of serious bacterial infections in patients > or = 65 years of age. A total of 79 patients were randomized; thirty-nine received meropenem (1 g/8 h), and 40 received cefuroxime (1.5 g/8 h) plus gentamicin (4 mg/kg of body weight daily) for 5 to 10 days. Metronidazole (500 mg/6 h) could be added to the cefuroxime-gentamicin regimen for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections (n = 10). Seventy patients were evaluable for clinical efficacy; the primary diagnoses were as follows: pneumonia in 41 patients (20 treated with meropenem, 21 treated with cefuroxime-gentamicin), intra-abdominal infection in 10 patients (7 meropenem, 3 cefuroxime-gentamicin-metronidazole), urinary tract infection (UTI) in 11 patients (6 meropenem, 5 cefuroxime-gentamicin), sepsis syndrome in 7 patients (4 meropenem, 3 cefuroxime-gentamicin), and "other" in 1 patient (cefuroxime-gentamicin). The pathogens isolated from 18 patients with bacteremia were as follows: Staphylococcus spp. (n = 2), Streptococcus spp. (n = 2), members of the family Enterobacteriaceae (n = 11), and Bacteroides spp. (n = 3). A satisfactory clinical response at the end of therapy was achieved in 26 of 37 (70%) and 24 of 33 (73%) evaluable patients treated with meropenem and combination therapy, respectively. Clinical success was achieved in 23 of 31 (74%) and 21 of 28 (75%) evaluable patients with infections other than UTIs, respectively. A satisfactory microbiological response occurred in 15 of 22 (68%) patients in the meropenem group compared with 12 of 19 (63%) treated with combination therapy. Renal failure occurred during therapy in 2 of 39 (5%) meropenem recipients compared with 5 of 40 (13%) of those treated with combination therapy. The findings in this small study indicate that meropenem is as efficacious for and as well tolerated by elderly patients as the combination of cefuroxime-gentamicin (+/- metronidazole). We compared the fixed combination amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid with that of amoxicillin plus gentamicin in the empirical initial treatment of severe urinary tract infections. The study included 87 hospitalized patients (51 women and 36 men, mean age 58 +/- 22 years) with acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis (n = 48) or with complicated urinary tract infections (n = 39). 80 patients (92%) had fever and 31 patients (36%) positive blood cultures. 45 patients were randomly assigned to amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid and 42 to amoxicillin plus gentamicin. Overall, 18 patients (21%) were infected with organisms resistant in vitro to amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid, whereas no pathogen was isolated with resistance to amoxicillin plus gentamicin (p < 0.0001). At the end of the empirical treatment (4.2 +/- 1.5 days after the start), significant bacteriuria was present in 6/39 patients (15%) assigned to amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid, compared to 0/34 patients assigned to amoxicillin plus gentamicin (p < 0.05). The clinical response was satisfactory in both groups, and the time from start of therapy to resolution of fever was 2.2 +/- 1.4 days in the amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid group and 2.3 +/- 1.7 days in the amoxicillin plus gentamicin group. Although the in-vitro resistance did not result in a lower clinical efficacy of amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid compared to amoxicillin plus gentamicin in our relatively small sample of patients, the data indicate that the antimicrobial activity of amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid is inadequate to cover the spectrum of causative agents in hospitalized patients with pyelonephritis or complicated urinary tract infections. Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid should therefore not be used in the initial empirical treatment of these infections. To compare the efficacy of once daily monotherapy with that of standard combination antibiotic therapy for the initial management of patients suspected of serious bacterial infections, 105 patients were randomised to treatment with ceftriaxone alone (53 patients) or to a combination of cefuroxime and gentamicin (52 patients). There was no difference between the groups in proportions responding to therapy or proportions dying from infection, except when non-evaluable patients were excluded from the group with definite bacterial infection, in which case response was better among those treated with ceftriaxone. The groups did not differ in number of side-effects, but therapy had to be discontinued because of treatment failure, an adverse effect, or death in 1 of 53 patients given ceftriaxone and in 11 of 34 given the combination. Use of ceftriaxone was 107.36 pounds ($182.51) cheaper per patient, and saved 40 minutes of nursing and drug administration time per patient per day. Thus 2 g ceftriaxone given once a day is at least as effective and costs less in time and money than gentamicin plus cefuroxime for the initial treatment of patients with serious systemic bacterial infections.
The addition of an aminoglycoside to beta-lactams for sepsis should be discouraged. All-cause fatality rates are unchanged. Combination treatment carries a significant risk of nephrotoxicity.