Anaerobic infection in cancer patients: comparative evaluation of clindamycin and cefoxitin

Abstract

Clindamycin and cefoxitin with or without gentamicin were administered to cancer patients having localized infections presumably caused by anaerobic pathogens. The rates of favorable response were 89% in patients receiving clindamycin alone and 78% in patients receiving cefoxitin alone. When the total experience is considered (clindamycin or cefoxitin with and without gentamicin), 20 of 24 patients (83%) responded to clindamycin and 18 of 22 (82%) responded to cefoxitin. Both therapies were well tolerated. Clindamycin was found to be more effective than cefoxitin in eradicating the offending anaerobic pathogens from the site of infection. Aerobic pathogens were frequently isolated along with anaerobes from the infectious sites in this series; their susceptibility or resistance to clindamycin or cefoxitin did not influence the therapeutic response.

Microbiology and management of infected solid tumours

“…Multiple studies provided an insight into the aetiology of infected tumour mass indirectly through the administration of antimicrobial agents effective against these organisms (Sinkovits & Smith 1970;Klastersky et al . 1977Klastersky et al . , 1979Ashby et al .…”

Moxalactam treatment of anaerobic infections in cancer patients

“…Anaerobic and aerobic pathogens were considered to be resistant in vitro to moxalactam if the MIC was higher than 25 ,ug/ml and fully susceptible to moxalactam if the MIC was less than or equal to 3 Hematological examination and determination of blood urea, creatinine, alkaline phosphatase, bilirubin, and transaminases were performed before, during and after therapy.…”