Efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin in patients with respiratory infections in comparison with amoxycillin
Abstract
Ciprofloxacin and amoxycillin were compared in the treatment of respiratory infections (pneumonia, acute bronchitis, exacerbation of chronic lung disease) in a study of 48 patients randomly assigned to ten days treatment with standard doses of either drug. Forty-eight patients were evaluated, 26 in the ciprofloxacin group and 22 in the amoxycillin group. The response to therapy was judged by clinical and bacteriological criteria. Ciprofloxacin was as effective as amoxycillin with a successful outcome in 81% and 82% of cases respectively. A specific bacterial cause was determined in just over half the cases (28 patients) and eradication rates were higher for ciprofloxacin than for amoxycillin, 87% and 64% respectively. In particular, amoxycillin was unsuccessful in two patients infected with Branhamella catarrhalis. Both regimens were safe and produced little, if any, adverse effect (one possible episode in each treatment group). Ciprofloxacin was found to be as effective in bacterial respiratory tract infections as amoxycillin.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 48 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Impact of antibiotics on the human microbiome and consequences for host health
- Antibiotics in the clinical pipeline in October 2019
- The incidence of collagen-associated adverse events in pediatric population with the use of fluoroquinolones: a nationwide cohort study in Taiwan
- Research Communications of the 32nd ECVIM-CA Online Congress
- Singlet-Oxygen Therapy. Scientific And Methodological Materials
- Artificial Intelligence in Pharmacovigilance
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.