Long-Term Follow-Up Trial of Oral Rifampin-Cotrimoxazole Combination versus Intravenous Cloxacillin in Treatment of Chronic Staphylococcal Osteomyelitis

Euba, G.; Murillo, Óscar; Sabé, N.; Mascaro, Jorge; Cabo, J.; Pérez, A.; Tubau, Fé; Verdaguer, Ricardo; Gudiol, Francesc; Ariza, Javier

doi:10.1128/aac.01504-08

Cited by 72 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of TMP-SMX, typically in combination with rifampin, is clinically recognized as a suitable alternative for the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis in adults. In recent work by Euba et al, 50 individuals were randomized to either cloxacillin or rifampin/TMP-SMX therapy [54]. Outcomes were similar between groups, including rates of relapse and foreign-body maintenance.…”

Section: Ca-mrsa Has Radically Altered Empiric Antibiotic Choicesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Osteomyelitis

Thomsen

Creech

2011

Curr Infect Dis Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acute hematogenous osteomyelitis is a common disease that affects previously healthy children of all age groups. Despite its importance, there are limited data in the current literature to guide many aspects of the diagnosis and therapy of this infection. Over the last decade, our understanding of the etiology of this infection has changed, with increased recognition of Kingella kingae and the dramatic increase in community-associated Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) infections. There is a need for the optimization of diagnostic strategies, such as MRI and serum inflammatory markers. Several recent studies have examined treatment strategies, including a rapid transition to oral antimicrobial therapy and a shortened overall course of therapy. Many new therapeutic options are on the horizon that will likely impact the management of this and other childhood bacterial infections. This review summarizes recent investigations into the optimal diagnosis and management of acute hematogenous osteomyelitis in children.

show abstract

Section: Ca-mrsa Has Radically Altered Empiric Antibiotic Choicesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Osteomyelitis

Thomsen

Creech

2011

Curr Infect Dis Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22,23 The combination is widely used in several European countries, especially for osteoarticular infections, although published evidence supporting its use remains sparse. 24,25 Moreover, since these antibiotics are available as generic agents, they offer substantial cost advantages over other agents such as linezolid and daptomycin. 26 As the launch of generic linezolid has recently been postponed to late 2016 and tedizolid will be patent-protected against generic erosion for many years, the off-patent combination of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin will remain an attractive and inexpensive alternative oral treatment option for MRSA infections.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized non-inferiority trial to compare trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin versus linezolid for the treatment of MRSA infection

Harbarth

Dach

Pagani

et al. 2014

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The therapeutic arsenal for MRSA infections is limited. The aim of this study was to assess the noninferiority of a combination of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin versus linezolid alone for the treatment of MRSA infection. Methods:We conducted a randomized, open-label, single-centre, non-inferiority trial comparing trimethoprim/ sulfamethoxazole (160 mg/800 mg three times daily) plus rifampicin (600 mg once a day) versus linezolid (600 mg twice a day) alone in adult patients with various types of MRSA infection. Patients were allocated 1: 1 to either regimen. The primary outcome was clinical cure at 6 weeks after the end of treatment (non-inferiority margin 20%) assessed by both ITT and PP analyses. Secondary outcomes included the microbiologically documented persistence of MRSA in clinical cultures, mortality and adverse events. The study protocol has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00711854).Results: Overall, 150 patients were randomized to one of the two treatment arms between January 2009 and December 2013 and were included in the ITT analysis. Of these 56/75 (74.7%) in the linezolid group and 59/75 (78.7%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group experienced clinical success (risk difference 4%, 95% CI 29.7% to 17.6%). The results were confirmed by the PP analysis, with 54/66 (81.8%) cured patients in the linezolid group versus 52/59 (88.1%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group (risk difference 6.3%, 95% CI 26.8% to 19.2%). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes, including microbiologically documented failure. Four adverse drug reactions attributed to the study medication occurred in the linezolid group versus nine in the trimethoprim/ sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group.Conclusions: Compared with linezolid, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin seems to be non-inferior in the treatment of MRSA infection.

show abstract

“…85 Oral antibiotics with excellent bioavailability such as linezolid, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, doxycycline/minocycline, fluoroquinolones such as levofloxacin and moxifloxacin, metronidazole, and clindamycin may be preferable to parenteral options, including patients with osteomyelitis. [86][87][88][89] For example, a randomized controlled trial showed that outcomes were comparable among patients with S aureus chronic osteomyelitis receiving oral rifampin-cotrimoxazole versus intravenous cloxacillin. 89 Patients who are being treated with parenteral antimicrobials for DFIs should be switched to oral antibiotics when their infection has stabilized, the leukocyte count is trending toward normal, and when they can take them orally without nausea or diarrhea.…”

Section: Patient-centered Concernsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Medical Management of Diabetic Foot Infections

Bader

Brooks

2012

Postgraduate Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are a commonly encountered medical problem. They are associated with an increased frequency and length of hospitalization and risk for lower-extremity amputation. Furthermore, they have substantial economic consequences. Patients with diabetes mellitus are particularly susceptible to foot infections because of neuropathy, vascular insufficiency, and diminished neutrophil function. The approach to managing DFIs starts with determining if an infection exists. If an infection exists, then the type, severity, extent of infection, and risk factors for resistant organisms should be determined through history, physical examination, and additional laboratory and radiological testing. Optimal management requires surgical debridement, pressure offloading, effective antibiotic therapy, wound care and moisture, maintaining good vascular supply, and correction of metabolic abnormalities, such as hyperglycemia, through a multidisciplinary team. Empiric antibiotics for DFIs vary based on the severity of the infection, but must include anti-staphylococcal coverage.

show abstract

Long-Term Follow-Up Trial of Oral Rifampin-Cotrimoxazole Combination versus Intravenous Cloxacillin in Treatment of Chronic Staphylococcal Osteomyelitis

Cited by 72 publications

References 22 publications

Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Osteomyelitis

Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Osteomyelitis

Randomized non-inferiority trial to compare trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin versus linezolid for the treatment of MRSA infection

Medical Management of Diabetic Foot Infections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About