Chest ACCP Education Calendar
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Khan, F.
Right arrow Articles by Basir, R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Khan, F.
Right arrow Articles by Basir, R

Chest, Vol 96, 528-537, Copyright © 1989 by American College of Chest Physicians

ARTICLES

Sequential intravenous-oral administration of ciprofloxacin vs ceftazidime in serious bacterial respiratory tract infections

FA Khan and R Basir
Department of Medicine, Nassau County Medical Center, East Meadow, NY 11554.

The efficacy and safety of sequential intravenous/oral ciprofloxacin in moderate to severe respiratory tract infections (RTI) were compared with those of ceftazidime in a prospective clinical trial. Sixty-six patients received IV ciprofloxacin (200 to 300 mg twice daily), followed by oral ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily). Fifty-six patients received intravenous ceftazidime (1 to 2 g two to three times daily). Ciprofloxacin was as effective as ceftazidime and produced a 91 percent clinical cure rate. Significantly more pretreatment bacterial isolates were susceptible to ciprofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin had a significantly higher rate of sputum bacterial eradication than did ceftazidime. Ciprofloxacin showed broad in vitro antibacterial activity with particularly low minimal inhibitory concentrations for Gram- negative organisms. Ciprofloxacin was well tolerated; there were few adverse effects. Ciprofloxacin was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for severe RTI that had the advantages of broad in vitro antibacterial activity, twice-daily dosing, and sequential availability in an intravenous and oral formulation.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
D. Shefet, E. Robenshtok, M. Paul, and L. Leibovici
Empirical Atypical Coverage for Inpatients With Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Arch Intern Med, September 26, 2005; 165(17): 1992 - 2000.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ThoraxHome page
A Torres, T T Bauer, C León-Gil, F Castillo, F Alvarez-Lerma, A Martínez-Pellús, S R Leal-Noval, P Nadal, M Palomar, J Blanquer, et al.
Treatment of severe nosocomial pneumonia: a prospective randomised comparison of intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem/cilastatin
Thorax, December 1, 2000; 55(12): 1033 - 1039.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
F. Sevinc, J. M. Prins, R. P. Koopmans, P. N. J. Langendijk, P. M. Bossuyt, J. Dankert, and P. Speelman
Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics: guidelines and implementation in a large teaching hospital
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., April 1, 1999; 43(4): 601 - 606.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American College of Chest Physicians.