Cargando…

Ampicillin/Sulbactam Vs. Cefoxitin for the Treatment of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease

Objective: The safety and efficacy of ampicillin plus sulbactam were compared with those of cefoxitin in the treatment of women with pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Methods: This single-site, randomized, prospective, third-party-blinded, comparative, parallel-treatment study enrolled 93 women wit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jemsek, Joseph G., Harrison, Frank
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 1997
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18476179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/S1064744997000562
_version_ 1782153989251399680
author Jemsek, Joseph G.
Harrison, Frank
author_facet Jemsek, Joseph G.
Harrison, Frank
author_sort Jemsek, Joseph G.
collection PubMed
description Objective: The safety and efficacy of ampicillin plus sulbactam were compared with those of cefoxitin in the treatment of women with pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Methods: This single-site, randomized, prospective, third-party-blinded, comparative, parallel-treatment study enrolled 93 women with a diagnosis of PID. Patients were treated with either ampicillin/sulbactam (2 g/1 g, administered intravenously [IV], every 6 h) or cefoxitin (2 g, administered IV, every 6 h) for a minimum of 12 doses. Patients with cultures positive for Chlamydia trachomatis also received concurrent oral or IV doxycycline (100 mg twice daily). Patients with cultures negative for C. trachomatis received prophylactic oral doxycycline (100 mg twice daily) for 10–14 days after treatment with either ampicillin/sulbactam or cefoxitin was completed. Results: Ninety-three patients were entered in the study: 47 in the ampicillin/sulbactam arm and 46 in the cefoxitin arm. All 93 patients were evaluable for safety; 61 (66%) were evaluable for efficacy. Demographic characteristics were similar for the groups. Of the 27 evaluable ampicillin/sulbactam-treated patients, 67% experienced clinical cure, 30% improved, and 4% failed treatment. Respective values for the 34 cefoxitin-treated patients were 68%, 24%, and 9% (P = 0.67). Pathogens were eradicated in 70% of the women given ampicillin/sulbactam vs. 56% of those who received cefoxitin (P = 0.64). Conclusions: Overall, ampicillin/sulbactam demonstrated clinical and bacteriologic efficacy at least equivalent to that of cefoxitin in the treatment of women with acute PID. The use of ampicillin/sulbactam for this indication may avoid the complex dosing regimens associated with other treatments.
format Text
id pubmed-2364580
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 1997
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-23645802008-05-12 Ampicillin/Sulbactam Vs. Cefoxitin for the Treatment of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Jemsek, Joseph G. Harrison, Frank Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol Research Article Objective: The safety and efficacy of ampicillin plus sulbactam were compared with those of cefoxitin in the treatment of women with pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Methods: This single-site, randomized, prospective, third-party-blinded, comparative, parallel-treatment study enrolled 93 women with a diagnosis of PID. Patients were treated with either ampicillin/sulbactam (2 g/1 g, administered intravenously [IV], every 6 h) or cefoxitin (2 g, administered IV, every 6 h) for a minimum of 12 doses. Patients with cultures positive for Chlamydia trachomatis also received concurrent oral or IV doxycycline (100 mg twice daily). Patients with cultures negative for C. trachomatis received prophylactic oral doxycycline (100 mg twice daily) for 10–14 days after treatment with either ampicillin/sulbactam or cefoxitin was completed. Results: Ninety-three patients were entered in the study: 47 in the ampicillin/sulbactam arm and 46 in the cefoxitin arm. All 93 patients were evaluable for safety; 61 (66%) were evaluable for efficacy. Demographic characteristics were similar for the groups. Of the 27 evaluable ampicillin/sulbactam-treated patients, 67% experienced clinical cure, 30% improved, and 4% failed treatment. Respective values for the 34 cefoxitin-treated patients were 68%, 24%, and 9% (P = 0.67). Pathogens were eradicated in 70% of the women given ampicillin/sulbactam vs. 56% of those who received cefoxitin (P = 0.64). Conclusions: Overall, ampicillin/sulbactam demonstrated clinical and bacteriologic efficacy at least equivalent to that of cefoxitin in the treatment of women with acute PID. The use of ampicillin/sulbactam for this indication may avoid the complex dosing regimens associated with other treatments. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 1997 /pmc/articles/PMC2364580/ /pubmed/18476179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/S1064744997000562 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
Jemsek, Joseph G.
Harrison, Frank
Ampicillin/Sulbactam Vs. Cefoxitin for the Treatment of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
title Ampicillin/Sulbactam Vs. Cefoxitin for the Treatment of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
title_full Ampicillin/Sulbactam Vs. Cefoxitin for the Treatment of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
title_fullStr Ampicillin/Sulbactam Vs. Cefoxitin for the Treatment of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
title_full_unstemmed Ampicillin/Sulbactam Vs. Cefoxitin for the Treatment of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
title_short Ampicillin/Sulbactam Vs. Cefoxitin for the Treatment of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
title_sort ampicillin/sulbactam vs. cefoxitin for the treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18476179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/S1064744997000562
work_keys_str_mv AT jemsekjosephg ampicillinsulbactamvscefoxitinforthetreatmentofpelvicinflammatorydisease
AT harrisonfrank ampicillinsulbactamvscefoxitinforthetreatmentofpelvicinflammatorydisease