Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of Sulbactam/Ampicillin and Clindamycin for the Treatment of Aerobic and Aerobic-Anaerobic Infections

1986; Oxford University Press; Volume: 8; Issue: Supplement_5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1093/clinids/8.supplement_5.s569

1537-6591

John F. Reinhardt, Lynn Johnston, Peter Ruane, Caroline C. Johnson, Leslie Ingram-Drake, Keith Norman Macdonald, Kevin W. Ward, Glenn E. Mathisen, W. Lance George, Sydney M. Finegold, Maury E. Mulligan,

Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria

In a randomized, prospective,double-blind trial, sulbactam/ampicillin was compared with clindamycin in terms of efficacy and safety for the treatment of bacterial infections. Both sulbactam/ampicillin and clindamycin were given with gentamicin when this course was indicated by clinical or laboratory findings. In five patients the site of infection was pleuropulmonary; in 14, bone; in 11, skin and soft tissue; and in one, intraabdominal. The commonest anaerobes isolated wereanaerobic cocci and Bacteroides species; the commonest aerobic and facultative bacteria were Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginasa, and various gram-positive cocci. All of six assessable patients given sulbactam/ampicillin alone had satisfactory clinical responses, as did sevenof nine patients given sulbactam/ampicillin plus gentamicin, all of six patients given clindamycin alone, and six of nine patients given clindamycin plus gentamicin. Pathogens were totally or partially eradicated in four of five, eight of nine, four of five, and three of nine assessable patients given these same regimens. Adverse reactions and laboratory abnormalities were relatively uncommon. Overall, sulbactam/ampicillin was as effective as clindamycin in the treatment of aerobic or mixed aerobic-anaerobic infections; however, the concomitant use of gentamicin was frequently required with both regimens.