These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A multicenter, double-blind, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole controlled study of enoxacin in the treatment of patients with complicated urinary tract infections.
    Author: Cox CE, Drylie DM, Klimberg I, Childs SJ, Wegenke JD, Malek GH, Harrison LH, McCullough DL, Finegold SM, George WL.
    Journal: J Urol; 1989 Mar; 141(3):575-8. PubMed ID: 2645421.
    Abstract:
    In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, 249 patients with complicated urinary tract infections received either 400 mg. enoxacin or 160 mg. trimethoprim plus 800 mg. sulfamethoxazole orally every 12 hours for 14 days. The clinical outcome at the end of treatment revealed that all 89 evaluable patients (100 per cent) in the enoxacin group and 88 of 90 (98 per cent) in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group had satisfactory clinical responses (cure or improvement). Bacteriological effectiveness was measured cumulatively based on responses during and at the end of treatment, and 7 days later at followup. Satisfactory bacteriological responses (eradication or superinfection at all evaluations throughout the study) were achieved in significantly more (p equals 0.03) patients treated with enoxacin (93 per cent) than in those treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (83 per cent). Both study medications were well tolerated. These results indicate that oral enoxacin was more effective clinically and bacteriologically (the latter statistically so) than trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole when given as empiric therapy in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]