This study aimed at assessing the prevalence of complications encountered during prolonged intravenous antibiotic (AB) therapy when treating acute osteoarticular (OA) infections in children. We reviewed retrospectively 60 paediatric patients treated in our department between 1988 and 1998 for acute osteoarticular infections (27 with acute haematogenous osteomyelitis, 25 with septic arthritis and 8 with septic osteoarthritis). C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and full blood count were monitored during the entire treatment. Body temperature was recorded three times per day until the fever subsided, and then daily during the remaining hospitalisation. Finally, we listed complications related to the antibiotic therapy and those linked to the presence of a venous catheter. Seventeen allergic reactions to drugs were recorded during the intravenous AB therapy. This complications occurred on average after 24.4 +/- 4.4 days of treatment. The clinical manifestations most often encountered were a delayed rise in temperature and cutaneous symptoms. Blood tests showed an isolated increase in the ESR and eosinophilia (> 1000 eosinophils/ml). Four venous catheters had to be removed, in two cases owing to their obstruction and in two cases owing to an infection. Prolonged intravenous AB therapy is not without complications due to its duration and its mode of administration. Drug allergies to AB constitute a major complication of the treatment. They may render the treatment of subsequent infections problematic and expose these patients to major allergic reactions if they accidentally encounter the molecule incriminated. Moreover, the anaesthetics required to insert a central venous catheter and the need to leave it in place for a prolonged duration constitute another source of potential complications. The duration of i.v. AB therapy could therefore be shortened if the clinical and biological evolution is favourable and the pathogen is identified.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with fever and neutropenia during chemotherapy for cancer who have a low risk of complications, oral administration of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics may be an acceptable alternative to intravenous treatment. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of patients (age, 5 to 74 years) who had fever and neutropenia during chemotherapy for cancer. Neutropenia was expected to be present for no more than 10 days in these patients, and they had to have no other underlying conditions. Patients were assigned to receive either oral ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin-clavulanate or intravenous ceftazidime. They were hospitalized until fever and neutropenia resolved. RESULTS: A total of 116 episodes were included in each group (84 patients in the oral-therapy group and 79 patients in the intravenous-therapy group). The mean neutrophil counts at admission were 81 per cubic millimeter and 84 per cubic millimeter, respectively; the mean duration of neutropenia was 3.4 and 3.8 days, respectively. Treatment was successful without the need for modifications in 71 percent of episodes in the oral-therapy group and 67 percent of episodes in the intravenous-therapy group (difference between groups, 3 percent; 95 percent confidence interval,-8 percent to 15 percent; P=0.48). Treatment was considered to have failed because of the need for modifications in the regimen in 13 percent and 32 percent of episodes, respectively (P<0.001) and because of the patient's inability to tolerate the regimen in 16 percent and 1 percent of episodes, respectively (P<0.001). There were no deaths. The incidence of intolerance of the oral antibiotics was 16 percent, as compared with 8 percent for placebo (P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized low-risk patients who have fever and neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy, empirical therapy with oral ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin-clavulanate is safe and effective.

Between December 1981 and May 1991, 44 infants and children with congenital toxoplasmosis were referred to our study group. A uniform approach to evaluation and therapy was developed and is described herein along with the clinical characteristics of these infants and children. In addition, case histories that illustrate especially important clinical features or previously undescribed findings are presented. Factors that contributed to the more severe disabilities included delayed diagnosis and initiation of therapy; prolonged, concomitant neonatal hypoxia and hypoglycemia; profound visual impairment; and prolonged, uncorrected increased intracranial pressure with hydrocephalus and compression of the brain. Years after therapy was discontinued, three children developed new retinal lesions (without loss of visual acuity when therapy for Toxoplasma gondii was initiated promptly), and three children experienced a new onset of afebrile seizures. Most remarkable were the normal developmental, neurological, and ophthalmologic findings at the early follow-up evaluations of many--but not all--of the treated children despite severe manifestations, such as substantial systemic disease, hydrocephalus, microcephalus, multiple intracranial calcifications, and extensive macular destruction detected at birth. These favorable outcomes contrast markedly with outcomes reported previously for children with congenital toxoplasmosis who were untreated or treated for only 1 month.

BACKGROUND: Intravenously administered antimicrobial agents have been the standard choice for the empirical management of fever in patients with cancer and granulocytopenia. If orally administered empirical therapy is as effective as intravenous therapy, it would offer advantages such as improved quality of life and lower cost. METHODS: In a prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned febrile patients with cancer who had granulocytopenia that was expected to resolve within 10 days to receive empirical therapy with either oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) plus amoxicillin-clavulanate (625 mg three times daily) or standard daily doses of intravenous ceftriaxone plus amikacin. All patients were hospitalized until their fever resolved. The primary objective of the study was to determine whether there was equivalence between the regimens, defined as an absolute difference in the rates of success of 10 percent or less. RESULTS: Equivalence was demonstrated at the second interim analysis, and the trial was terminated after the enrollment of 353 patients. In the analysis of the 312 patients who were treated according to the protocol and who could be evaluated, treatment was successful in 86 percent of the patients in the oral-therapy group (95 percent confidence interval, 80 to 91 percent) and 84 percent of those in the intravenous-therapy group (95 percent confidence interval, 78 to 90 percent; P=0.02). The results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis (80 percent and 77 percent, respectively; P=0.03), as were the duration of fever, the time to a change in the regimen, the reasons for such a change, the duration of therapy, and survival. The types of adverse events differed slightly between the groups but were similar in frequency. CONCLUSIONS: In low-risk patients with cancer who have fever and granulocytopenia, oral therapy with ciprofloxacin plus amoxicillin-clavulanate is as effective as intravenous therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare piperacillin and tobramycin with ceftazidime alone for the empiric treatment of fever in the neutropenic patient without evidence of skin infections or anaerobic infections. DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS: 876 febrile, neutropenic episodes in 696 patients (83% acute leukemia or bone marrow transplantation); 92 episodes were excluded from analysis because of protocol violation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either intravenous ceftazidime (2 g every 8 h) or piperacillin (12 to 18 g/d in 4 to 6 divided doses plus tobramycin (1.7 to 2.0 mg/kg body weight every 8 h). Treatment could be modified at any time at the discretion of the investigator. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of satisfactory response, eradication of the infecting organism, development of superinfections, and occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: As a single agent, ceftazidime was as effective as the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin (62.7% satisfactory responses compared with 61.1%; odds ratio, 1.07%; 95% Cl, 0.79 to 1.44; P > 0.2). Equivalent responses were also obtained in episodes of profound neutropenia (odds ratio, 0.76; Cl, 0.43 to 1.33; P > 0.2). Infectious mortality was 6% for ceftazidime and 8% for the combination therapy. Eradication of the infecting organisms was achieved in 79% of bacteremic episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 68% of the episodes treated with the combination therapy (odds ratio, 1.76; Cl, 0.92 to 3.38; P = 0.08), and rates for gram-negative rod bacteremia were also similar (95% compared with 77%; odds ratio, 5.25; Cl, 1.0 to 27.5; P = 0.03). Superinfections developed in 38 episodes in each group. An adverse event occurred in 8% of episodes treated with ceftazidime compared with 20% of episodes treated with combination therapy (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Ceftazidime alone was as effective but safer than the combination of piperacillin and tobramycin for the empiric treatment of febrile, neutropenic patients, even those with profound and prolonged granulocytopenia.

We prospectively studied the impact of an antibiotic prophylaxis regimen on the incidence of infections, organ dysfunctions, and mortality in a predominantly surgical and trauma intensive care unit (ICU) population. A total of 546 patients were enrolled and stratified according to Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-II scores. They were then randomized to receive either 2 x 400 mg of intravenous ciprofloxacin for 4 days, together with a mixture of topical gentamicin and polymyxin applied to the nostrils, mouth, and stomach throughout their ICU stay or to receive intravenous and topical placebo. When receiving prophylaxis, significantly fewer patients acquired infections (p = 0.001, risk ratio [RR], 0.477; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.367-0.620), especially pneumonias (6 versus 29, p = 0.007), other lower respiratory tract infections (39 versus 70, p = 0.007), bloodstream infections (14 versus 36, p = 0.007), or urinary tract infections (36 versus 60, p = 0.042). Also, significantly fewer patients acquired severe organ dysfunctions (63 versus 96 patients, p = 0.0051; RR, 0.636; 95% CI, 0.463-0.874), especially renal dysfunctions (17 versus 38; p = 0.018). Within 5 days after admission, 24 patients died in each group, whereas 28 patients receiving prophylaxis and 51 receiving placebo died in the ICU thereafter (p = 0.0589; RR, 0.640; 95% CI, 0.402-1.017). The overall ICU mortality was not statistically different (52 versus 75 fatalities), but the mortality was significantly reduced for 237 patients of the midrange stratum with APACHE-II scores of 20-29 on admission (20 versus 38 fatalities, p = 0.0147; RR, 0.508; 95% CI, 0.295-0.875); there was still a favorable trend after 1 year (51 versus 60 fatalities; p = 0.0844; RR, 0.720; 95% CI, 0.496-1.046). Surveillance cultures from tracheobronchial, oropharyngeal, and gastric secretions and from rectal swabs did not show any evidence for the selection of resistant microorganisms in the patients receiving prophylaxis.

The objective of the present trial was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of moxifloxacin (400 mg) given intravenously (i.v.) once daily followed by oral moxifloxacin (400 mg) for 7 to 14 days with the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of co-amoxiclav (1.2 g) administered by i.v. infusion three times a day followed by oral co-amoxiclav (625 mg) three times a day, with or without clarithromycin (500 mg) twice daily (i.v. or orally), for 7 to 14 days in adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia requiring initial parenteral therapy. A total of 628 patients were enrolled and assessed by evaluation of their clinical and bacteriological responses 5 to 7 days and 21 to 28 days after administration of the last dose of study medication. Although the trial was designed, on the basis of predefined outcomes, to demonstrate the equivalence of the two regimens, the results showed statistically significant higher clinical success rates (for moxifloxacin, 93.4%, and for comparator regimen, 85.4%; difference [Delta], 8.05%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.91 to 13.19%; P = 0.004) and bacteriological success rates (for moxifloxacin, 93.7%, and for comparator regimen, 81.7%; Delta, 12.06%; 95% CI, 1.21 to 22.91%) for patients treated with moxifloxacin. This superiority was seen irrespective of the severity of the pneumonia and whether or not the combination therapy included a macrolide. The time to resolution of fever was also statistically significantly faster for patients who received moxifloxacin (median time, 2 versus 3 days), and the duration of hospital admission was approximately 1 day less for patients who received moxifloxacin. The treatment was converted to oral therapy immediately after the initial mandatory 3-day period of i.v. administration for a larger proportion of patients in the moxifloxacin group than patients in the comparator group (151 [50.2%] versus 57 [17.8%] patients). There were fewer deaths (9 [3.0%] versus 17 [5.3%]) and fewer serious adverse events (38 [12.6%] versus 53 [16.5%]) in the moxifloxacin group than in the comparator group. The rates of drug-related adverse events were comparable in both groups (38.9% in each treatment group). The overall incidence of laboratory abnormalities was similar in both groups. Thus, it is concluded that monotherapy with moxifloxacin is superior to that with a standard combination regimen of a beta-lactam and a beta-lactamase inhibitor, co-amoxiclav, with or without a macrolide, clarithromycin, in the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia admitted to a hospital.

In a double-blind randomized trial, imipenem/cilastatin (I/C; 500 mg every 6 hours) and ampicillin/sulbactam (A/S; 3 g every 6 hours) were compared in regard to their efficacy for initial empirical and definitive parenteral treatment of limb-threatening pedal infection in diabetic patients. The major endpoints of treatment were cure (resolution of soft-tissue infection), failure (inadequate improvement, necessitating a change in antibiotic therapy), and eradication (clearance of all pathogens from the wound and any bone cultures). Patients in the two treatment groups were similar in regard to the severity of diabetes; presence of neuropathy and peripheral vascular disease; site and severity of infection; pathogen isolated; and frequency of osteomyelitis (associated with 68% of the 48 A/S-treated infections and 56% of the 48 I/C-treated infections). After 5 days of empirical treatment, improvement was noted in 94% of the A/S and 98% of the I/C recipients. At the end of definitive treatment (days' duration [mean +/- SD]: 13 +/- 6.5 [A/S], 14.8 +/- 8.6 [I/C]), outcomes were similar: cure, 81%(A/S) vs. 85%(I/C); failure, 17%(A/S) vs. 13%(I/C); and eradication, 67%(A/S) vs. 75%(I/C). Treatment failures were associated with the presence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens and possible nosocomial acquisition of infections. The number of adverse events among patients in the two treatment groups was similar: 7 in the A/S group (4 had diarrhea and 3 had rash) and 9 in the I/C group (5 had diarrhea, 2 had severe nausea, 1 had rash, and 1 had seizure). Efficacy of A/S and I/C is similar for initial empirical and definitive treatment of limb-threatening pedal infection in patients with diabetes.

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.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major pathogen in hospitals. Current antimicrobial regimens for eradicating colonizing strains are not well defined and are often complicated by the emergence of resistance. The combination of novobiocin plus rifampin in vitro and in vivo was found to prevent the emergence of resistant populations of initially susceptible strains of MRSA, particularly resistance to rifampin. We therefore studied, in a randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparative trial, the combination of novobiocin plus rifampin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (T/S) plus rifampin in order to determine the efficacy of each regimen in eradicating MRSA colonization and to further characterize the host factors involved in the response to this antimicrobial therapy. Among the 126 individuals enrolled in the study, 94 (80 patients; 14 hospital personnel) were evaluable. Among the 94 evaluable subjects, no significant demographic or medical differences existed between the two treatment groups. Successful clearance of the colonizing MRSA strains was achieved in 30 of 45 (67%) subjects receiving novobiocin plus rifampin, whereas successful clearance was achieved in 26 of 49 (53%) subjects treated with T/S plus rifampin (P = 0.18). The emergence of resistance to rifampin developed more frequently in 14%(7 of 49) of subjects treated with T/S plus rifampin than in 2%(1 of 45) of subjects treated with novobiocin plus rifampin (P = 0.04). Restriction endonuclease studies of large plasmid DNA demonstrated that the same strain was present at pretherapy and posttherapy in most refractory cases (24 of 29 [83%] subjects). Among the 56 successfully treated subjects, clearance of MRSA was age dependent: 29 of 36 (80%) subjects in the 18- to 49-year-old age group, 19 of 35 (54%) subjects in the 50- to 69-year-old age group, and 8 of 23 (35%) in the 70- to 94-year-old age group (P < 0.01). Clearance was also site dependent; culture-positive samples from wounds were related to a successful outcome in only 22 (48%) of 46 subjects, whereas culture-positive samples from sites other than wounds (e.g., nares, rectum, and sputum) were associated with a success rate of 34 of 48 (71%) subjects (P = 0.02). Foreign bodies in wounds did not prevent the eradication of MRSA by either regimen. T/S plus rifampin was less effective in clearing both pressure and other wounds, whereas novobiocin plus rifampin was equally effective in clearing both pressure and other wounds. There were no significant differences in toxicity between the two regimens. Thus, the combination of novobiocin plus rifampin, in comparison with T/S plus rifampin, was more effective in preventing the emergence of resistance to rifampin and demonstrated a trend toward greater activity in clearing the MRSA carrier state. The response to either combination depended on host factors, particularly age and the site of MRSA colonization.

Brucellosis is a common zoonosis in many parts of the world; the best regimen for the treatment of brucellosis has not been clearly determined. We have carried out a multicenter, open, controlled trial in five general hospitals in Spain to compare the efficacy and safety of doxycycline and rifampin (DR) versus doxycycline and streptomycin (DS) for the treatment of human brucellosis. The study included 194 ambulatory or hospitalized patients with acute brucellosis, without endocarditis or neurobrucellosis. The diagnostic criterion was isolation of Brucella species from blood or other tissues (n = 120) or a standard tube agglutination titer of 1/160 or more for anti-Brucella antibodies with compatible clinical findings (n = 74). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 100 mg of doxycycline twice daily plus rifampin, 900 mg/day, in a single morning dose for 45 days (DR group) or the same dose of doxycycline for 45 days plus streptomycin, 1 g/day, intramuscularly for 14 days (DS group). A lack of therapeutic efficacy developed in 8 of the 100 patients in the DR group (8%) and in 2 of the 94 patients in the DS group (2%)(P = 0.10). Relapses occurred in 16 of the 100 patients in the DR group (16%) but in only 5 of the 94 patients in the DS group (5.3%)(P = 0.02). When relapse was considered in combination with initial lack of efficacy, 26 patients in the DR group (24%) and 7 patients in the DS group (7.45%) failed to respond to therapy (P = 0.0016). In general, therapy was well tolerated and only four patients (4%) in the DR group and two (2%) in the DS group had episodes of adverse effects necessitating discontinuation of treatment (P> 0.2). We conclude that a doxycycline-and-rifampin regimen is less effective than the doxycycline-and-streptomycin regimen in patients with acute brucellosis.