z-logo
Premium
A randomized controlled study of trimethoprim‐sulfamethoxazole versus norfloxacin for the prevention of infection in cirrhotic patients
Author(s) -
Lontos Steve,
Shelton Edward,
Angus Peter W,
Vaughan Rhys,
Roberts Stuart K,
Gordon Adam,
Gow Paul J
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of digestive diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.684
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1751-2980
pISSN - 1751-2972
DOI - 10.1111/1751-2980.12132
Subject(s) - medicine , spontaneous bacterial peritonitis , bacteremia , liver transplantation , gastroenterology , incidence (geometry) , trimethoprim , cirrhosis , adverse effect , sulfamethoxazole , liver disease , norfloxacin , surgery , antibiotics , transplantation , ciprofloxacin , physics , optics , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
Objective To prospectively compare norfloxacin ( N ) with trimethoprim‐sulfamethoxazole ( T ‐ S ) in preventing infection in cirrhotic patients. Methods Cirrhotic patients at high risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis ( SBP ) were recruited and assigned N (400 mg daily) or T ‐ S (160/800 mg daily). Patients were followed up for 12 months. The primary end‐point was the incidence of infection. Secondary end‐points included the incidence of SBP , bacteremia, extraperitoneal infection requiring antibiotic treatment, liver transplantation, death, side effects and rate of resistance to N or T ‐ S . Results A total of 80 patients with a mean age of 53.0 ± 9.3 years were prescribed N ( n  = 40) or T ‐ S ( n  = 40). Child–Pugh status, model for end‐stage liver disease and risk factors for SBP were similar between the groups. There were 10 episodes of infections in the N group and 9 in the T ‐ S group ( P  = 0.79). Two patients each in the N and T ‐ S group developed SBP ( P  = 0.60). There was a difference in the rate of transplantation favoring N ( P  = 0.03) but not death. The number of adverse events for N ( n  = 7) and T ‐ S ( n  = 10) were similar ( P  = 0.59), with T ‐ S being associated with an increased risk of developing a definite or probable adverse event compared to N (22.5% vs 0%, P  = 0.01). Conclusions This study failed to demonstrate a difference between N and T ‐ S groups in their effects on preventing infection in patients with liver cirrhosis. T ‐ S can be considered an alternative first‐line therapy for infection prophylaxis.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom