Sulfathiazole in the treatment of measles andits complications

Meta-analysis of trials of prophylactic antibiotics for children with measles: inadequate evidence

“…13 14 15 16 17 18 Five of the trials were conducted in Glasgow, London, or New York between 1939 and 1954,13 14 15 16 17 a time when measles was often complicated by bronchopneumonia but controlled trials were not well designed; the sixth study was conducted in India in the 1960s 18. Apart from two studies in which the method of randomisation was not specified,15 18 alternate children were allocated to either an antibiotic or a control group when they were admitted to the trial; in four studies antibiotics were given to all children who had pneumonia at the time of admission and to any child in the control group who developed pneumonia or sepsis,15 16 17 18 and the other two studies did not give any antibiotics to children in the control group 13 14. All but one of the studies were unblinded,13 14 15 16 17 and only one paper mentioned withdrawals from the trial 13.…”

“…Apart from two studies in which the method of randomisation was not specified,15 18 alternate children were allocated to either an antibiotic or a control group when they were admitted to the trial; in four studies antibiotics were given to all children who had pneumonia at the time of admission and to any child in the control group who developed pneumonia or sepsis,15 16 17 18 and the other two studies did not give any antibiotics to children in the control group 13 14. All but one of the studies were unblinded,13 14 15 16 17 and only one paper mentioned withdrawals from the trial 13. None of the papers provided information about antibiotic treatment given before randomisation.…”

“…In the first four studies13 14 15 16 the incidence of pneumonia or sepsis in the control group was similar to that in the antibiotic prophylaxis group (11/462 (2%) v 12/447 (3%)); in the other two studies,17 18 where there was an unusually high incidence of pneumonia or sepsis in the control group, there were more complications in the control group than in the antibiotic group (23/161 (14%) v 2/234 (1%)).…”

“…Only one of the trials13 had a mortality of 1% or more, although two others14 15 were in communities where the mortality had been more than 1% in the immediately preceding years, when antibiotics were not available.…”

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Acute Viral Respiratory Diseases

“…Anti¬ biotics are thought to work by suppressing the normal flora and preventing bacterial infections. 31 Normal flora decreased, staph or enteric bacillus 23 predominant All organisms suppressed 11 Normal flora temporarily suppressed 10 Total 75 The important question here is whether anti¬ biotics actually will suppress the normal flora.…”