Maxaquin and ciprofloxacin in the treatment of complicated and recurrent urinary infections in adults
Abstract
Clinical efficacy of maxaquin versus ciprofloxacin against complicated or/and recurrent urinary infections (62 patients primarily with chronic pyelonephritis with nephrolithiasis) proved higher (92.3% vs 80.0%) in equal microbiological activity (73.2% vs. 73.4%) of the drugs. Maxaquin was less active in enhancing the culture resistance. Both quinolones had no negative effects on the studied systems of the body's antiinfectious resistance and promoted partial correction of dysbiotic manifestations on the colon mucosa. Side effects of both drugs occurred with similar frequency and severity, starting earlier in administration of maxaquin. The authors offer to manage urinary infections in adults effectively with maxaquin in a dose 400 mg once a day and ciprofloxacin in a dose 500 mg twice a day by 7-14-day courses.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 62 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Horizontal gene transfer in the human gastrointestinal tract: potential spread of antibiotic resistance genes
- Mutation supply and relative fitness shape the genotypes of ciprofloxacin-resistant Escherichia coli
- Genomic Survey of E. coli From the Bladders of Women With and Without Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
- Characterization of cefotaxime-resistant urinary Escherichia coli from primary care in South-West England 2017–18
- Fitness cost constrains the spectrum of marR mutations in ciprofloxacin-resistant Escherichia coli
- Emerging evidence-based innovative approaches to control catheter-associated urinary tract infection: a review
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.