English
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
American Journal of Medicine 1989-Dec

A comparative evaluation of oral ofloxacin versus intravenous cefotaxime therapy for serious skin and skin structure infections.

Only registered users can translate articles
Log In/Sign up
The link is saved to the clipboard
L O Gentry
G Rodriguez-Gomez
B J Zeluff
A Khoshdel
M Price

Keywords

Abstract

In a single-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, 100 successive patients were enrolled with serious skin and soft-tissue infections, whose illnesses had precipitated an initial hospital admission or an extension of inpatient care. There were 93 evaluable patients who received either ofloxacin, 400 mg orally every 12 hours plus an intravenously administered placebo every eight hours, or cefotaxime, 2.0 g intravenously every eight hours plus an orally administered placebo every 12 hours. The average length of therapy was 12 days. Both patient groups had similar demographics and underlying conditions. Wound infection was the most common diagnosis, followed by abscess, cellulitis, and trophic ulcer. Multiple pathogens were commonly isolated from infected sites (1.4 pathogens/patient). The most common pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus, followed by Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens, Proteus/Providencia spp., and Enterobacter spp. Persistence of the initial pathogen at the end of therapy was observed in 22.5 percent of the cefotaxime-treated group, but in only 10 percent of the ofloxacin-treated group. There was one clinical failure in the cefotaxime group, caused by a susceptible strain of Enterobacter cloacae, and there was one clinical failure in the ofloxacin group, in which the patient had an Acinetobacter calcoaceticus var. anitratus wound infection and subsequently developed a P. aeruginosa superinfection. Adverse experiences, including rash, insomnia, and nausea, occurred in 16 percent of the patients in each group. It was concluded that oral ofloxacin is as safe and efficacious as parenteral cefotaxime in the treatment of serious skin and skin structure infections.

Join our facebook page

The most complete medicinal herbs database backed by science

  • Works in 55 languages
  • Herbal cures backed by science
  • Herbs recognition by image
  • Interactive GPS map - tag herbs on location (coming soon)
  • Read scientific publications related to your search
  • Search medicinal herbs by their effects
  • Organize your interests and stay up do date with the news research, clinical trials and patents

Type a symptom or a disease and read about herbs that might help, type a herb and see diseases and symptoms it is used against.
*All information is based on published scientific research

Google Play badgeApp Store badge