Cargando…

Double-Blind, Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Study of Trospectomycin Vs. Clindamycin, Both With Aztreonam, in Non-Community Acquired Obstetric and Gynecologic Infections

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of trospectomycin sulfate with that of clindamycin phosphate, both with aztreonam, for the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections. Methods: In a double-blind, multicenter, prospective randomized study, 57...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chatwani, Ashwin, Martens, Mark, Blanco, Jorge, Gall, Stanley, Przybylko, Kira, Wajszczuk, Charles P., Nickens, Dana
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 1997
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364549/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18476152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/S1064744997000483
_version_ 1782153981361913856
author Chatwani, Ashwin
Martens, Mark
Blanco, Jorge
Gall, Stanley
Przybylko, Kira
Wajszczuk, Charles P.
Nickens, Dana
author_facet Chatwani, Ashwin
Martens, Mark
Blanco, Jorge
Gall, Stanley
Przybylko, Kira
Wajszczuk, Charles P.
Nickens, Dana
author_sort Chatwani, Ashwin
collection PubMed
description Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of trospectomycin sulfate with that of clindamycin phosphate, both with aztreonam, for the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections. Methods: In a double-blind, multicenter, prospective randomized study, 579 patients with either endometritis following cesarean delivery or pelvic cellulitis following hysterectomy were enrolled and received medication. Administered was either trospectomycin sulfate 500 mg IV every 8 h or clindamycin phosphate 900 mg IV every 8 h in a 1:1 randomization ratio. Both groups of patients received aztreonam 1 g IV every 8 h. The patients were followed for clinical responses and side effects. Results: The cure rate for the trospectomycin sulfate arm was 91.8% and for clindamycin phosphate arm it was 88.4% (P = 0.218). The adverse events were similar in both groups. Conclusions: Trospectomycin was as effective as clindamycin, when both were combined with aztreonam, in treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections.
format Text
id pubmed-2364549
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 1997
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-23645492008-05-12 Double-Blind, Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Study of Trospectomycin Vs. Clindamycin, Both With Aztreonam, in Non-Community Acquired Obstetric and Gynecologic Infections Chatwani, Ashwin Martens, Mark Blanco, Jorge Gall, Stanley Przybylko, Kira Wajszczuk, Charles P. Nickens, Dana Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol Research Article Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of trospectomycin sulfate with that of clindamycin phosphate, both with aztreonam, for the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections. Methods: In a double-blind, multicenter, prospective randomized study, 579 patients with either endometritis following cesarean delivery or pelvic cellulitis following hysterectomy were enrolled and received medication. Administered was either trospectomycin sulfate 500 mg IV every 8 h or clindamycin phosphate 900 mg IV every 8 h in a 1:1 randomization ratio. Both groups of patients received aztreonam 1 g IV every 8 h. The patients were followed for clinical responses and side effects. Results: The cure rate for the trospectomycin sulfate arm was 91.8% and for clindamycin phosphate arm it was 88.4% (P = 0.218). The adverse events were similar in both groups. Conclusions: Trospectomycin was as effective as clindamycin, when both were combined with aztreonam, in treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 1997 /pmc/articles/PMC2364549/ /pubmed/18476152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/S1064744997000483 Text en Copyright © 1997 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chatwani, Ashwin
Martens, Mark
Blanco, Jorge
Gall, Stanley
Przybylko, Kira
Wajszczuk, Charles P.
Nickens, Dana
Double-Blind, Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Study of Trospectomycin Vs. Clindamycin, Both With Aztreonam, in Non-Community Acquired Obstetric and Gynecologic Infections
title Double-Blind, Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Study of Trospectomycin Vs. Clindamycin, Both With Aztreonam, in Non-Community Acquired Obstetric and Gynecologic Infections
title_full Double-Blind, Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Study of Trospectomycin Vs. Clindamycin, Both With Aztreonam, in Non-Community Acquired Obstetric and Gynecologic Infections
title_fullStr Double-Blind, Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Study of Trospectomycin Vs. Clindamycin, Both With Aztreonam, in Non-Community Acquired Obstetric and Gynecologic Infections
title_full_unstemmed Double-Blind, Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Study of Trospectomycin Vs. Clindamycin, Both With Aztreonam, in Non-Community Acquired Obstetric and Gynecologic Infections
title_short Double-Blind, Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Study of Trospectomycin Vs. Clindamycin, Both With Aztreonam, in Non-Community Acquired Obstetric and Gynecologic Infections
title_sort double-blind, multicenter, prospective randomized study of trospectomycin vs. clindamycin, both with aztreonam, in non-community acquired obstetric and gynecologic infections
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364549/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18476152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/S1064744997000483
work_keys_str_mv AT chatwaniashwin doubleblindmulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudyoftrospectomycinvsclindamycinbothwithaztreonaminnoncommunityacquiredobstetricandgynecologicinfections
AT martensmark doubleblindmulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudyoftrospectomycinvsclindamycinbothwithaztreonaminnoncommunityacquiredobstetricandgynecologicinfections
AT blancojorge doubleblindmulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudyoftrospectomycinvsclindamycinbothwithaztreonaminnoncommunityacquiredobstetricandgynecologicinfections
AT gallstanley doubleblindmulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudyoftrospectomycinvsclindamycinbothwithaztreonaminnoncommunityacquiredobstetricandgynecologicinfections
AT przybylkokira doubleblindmulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudyoftrospectomycinvsclindamycinbothwithaztreonaminnoncommunityacquiredobstetricandgynecologicinfections
AT wajszczukcharlesp doubleblindmulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudyoftrospectomycinvsclindamycinbothwithaztreonaminnoncommunityacquiredobstetricandgynecologicinfections
AT nickensdana doubleblindmulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudyoftrospectomycinvsclindamycinbothwithaztreonaminnoncommunityacquiredobstetricandgynecologicinfections