One or three weeks' treatment of acute pyelonephritis? A double-blind comparison, using a fixed combination of pivampicillin plus pivmecillinam.

The clinical and bacteriological effects of 1 and 3 weeks' pivampicillin plus pivmecillinam treatment were compared in a double-blind, randomized study of patients with acute pyelonephritis. Three weeks after the end of active treatment, clinical success was seen in 29 (91%) of the 32 patients on 1-week treatment, compared with 28 (97%) of the 29 patients treated for 3 weeks. Bacteriological success was seen in only nine (28%) patients in the 1-week group vs. 20 (69%) in the 3-week group (p = 0.004). This difference was mainly due to a large number of relapses of lower urinary tract infection in the 1-week group. Even in uncomplicated cases, the bacteriological result of the 1-week treatment was unsatisfactory. Side-effects were more common in the 3-week treatment group. In conclusion, 1-week treatment of patients with acute pyelonephritis is too short. Three weeks' treatment is effective in uncomplicated cases, but even longer treatment or low-dose prophylaxis is indicated in certain patients with predisposing factors.

The combination of pivampicillin and pivmecillinam versus pivampicillin alone in the treatment of acute pyelonephritis.

96 patients with clinical symptoms of acute pyelonephritis were randomized to 2 weeks treatment with either a fixed combination of pivampicillin and pivmecillinam or to pivampicillin alone. If needed, treatment was first started with the respective parenteral equivalents of the drugs. Acute pyelonephritis was bacteriologically verified in 57 patients, in whom Escherichia coli was isolated in 80% of the cases, Klebsiella in 7% and Proteus mirabilis in 5%. 22 of the 39 patients excluded did not have significant bacteriuria (less than 10(8) c.f.u./l). Combination treatment was superior to pivampicillin/ampicillin alone, in terms of clinical effect, with successful treatment being noted in 93% in the combination group and in 53% in the ampicillin group (p = 0.002). The combination was also more effective bacteriologically and it did not select resistant strains in the urinary tract. Ampicillin treatment alone, was, however, associated with a significant increase in urinary strains resistant to ampicillin and to mecillinam. Unsuccessful responders had a significantly higher mean age (p less than 0.01) than successful responders. No serious side-effects were noted.

Comparison of systemic prophylaxis with metronidazole-fosfomycin and metronidazole-cephalothin in elective colorectal surgery.

A comparative randomized study was designed to evaluate the prophylactic effect of two different combinations of antimicrobials, i.e. metronidazole-fosfomycin (n = 30) and metronidazole-cephalothin (n = 28), in elective colorectal surgery. The study was strictly consecutive and the treatment groups comparable. The total rate of surgical septic complications was low (10%) in both treatment groups. No anaerobic infections could be demonstrated and the clinical course was mild in all patients developing septic complications. No other antimicrobial therapy was given. Peroperative bacteriological sampling yielded aerobes and anaerobes in 51 and 32, respectively, of 58 patients. A high percentage of the isolated aerobes and anaerobes were cephalothin-resistant, whereas most aerobes were sensitive to fosfomycin. Only aerobes were isolated from surgical septic sites. The absence of anaerobic sepsis must be ascribed to the metronidazole prophylaxis; the probable reason for the low rate of surgical aerobic septic complications is that antimicrobials, active against aerobes, were included in the prophylactic regimens. The combination, metronidazole-fosfomycin, seems adequate and safe for continued evaluation.