Skip to main content
Log in

Anaerobic infections in cancer patients — A retrospective analysis of clindamycin, tindazole, doxycycline, cefoxitin and lamoxactam

Anaerobe Infektionen bei Krebspatienten, Retrospektive Analyse von Clindamycin, Tinidazol, Doxycyclin, Cefoxitin und Lamoxactam

  • Originalia
  • Published:
Infection Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The results of three consecutive clinical trials on the therapy of anaerobic infections in cancer patients have been compared. The success rate with lamoxactam (94%) (6000 mg/d i. v.) was statistically different from that of doxycycline (63%) (300 mg/d per os) and tinidazole (61%) (1200 mg/d per os). Clindamycin (1200 mg/d per os), clindamycin (2700 mg/d i. v.) and cefoxitin (6000 mg/d i. v.) resulted in a favourable outcome in approximately 80% of the patients. Mixed aerobic and anaerobic infections had a similar response rate (80%). Even when the anaerobic pathogen was resistant to therapy, six of ten patients were cured. Surgical drainage played an important role, but was difficult to assess precisely.

Zusammenfassung

Die Ergebnisse von drei nacheinander durchgeführten klinischen Studien zur Therapie anaerober Infektionen bei Krebspatienten wurden verglichen. Die Erfolgsrate von 94% mit Lamoxactam, 6000 mg/die i. v., unterschied sich signifikant von derjenigen mit 300 mg/die Doxycyclin per os (63%) und von 1200 mg/die Tinidazol per os (61%). Clindamycin (1200 mg/die, per os), Clindamycin (2700 mg/die, i. v.) und Cefoxitin (6000 mg/die, i. v.) führten bei etwa 80% der Patienten zu einem günstigen Ergebnis. Eine ähnliche Erfolgsrate wurde bei aeroben und anaeroben Mischinfektionen beobachtet (80%). Sechs von zehn Patienten wurden geheilt, obwohl der anaerobe Erreger therapieresistent war. Eine wesentliche Rolle kam der chirurgischen Drainage zu, doch war eine präzise Auswertung ihrer Wertigkeit schwierig.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature

  1. Sinkovits, J. G., Smith, J. P. Septicemia withBacteroides in patients with malignant diseases. Cancer 25 (1970) 663–671.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Felner, J. M., Dowell, V. R. Bacteroides bacteremia. Am. J. Med. 50 (1971) 787–796.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Holdeman, L. V., Moore, W. E. C. (eds.): Anaerobes Laboratory Manual, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg 1975.

  4. Foltz, E. L., Graves, P. S., Steers, E. An inocula-replicating apparatus for routine testing of bacterial susceptibility to the antibiotics. Antibiot. Chemother. 9 (1959) 307–311.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bartlett, I. G., Finegold, S. S., Sutter, I. L. Treatment of anaerobic infections with vancomycin and clindamycin. N. Engl. J. Med. 287 (1972) 1006–1010.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Klastersky, J. Husson, M., Weerts-Ruhl, D., Daneau, D. Anaerobic wound infections in cancer patients: comparative trials of clindamycin, tinidazole and doxycycline. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 12 (1977) 563–570.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Klastersky, J., Coppens, L., Mombelli, G. Anaerobic infections in cancer patients: comparative evaluations of clindamycin and cefoxitin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 7 (1979) 366–371.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Young, L. S., Martin, W. J., Meyer, R. D., Weinstein, R. J., Anderson, E. T. Gram-negative rod bacteremia: microbiologic, immunologic and therapeutic considerations. Ann. Int. Med. 86 (1977) 456–471.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lagast, H., Klastersky, J. Anaerobic infections in cancer patients — A retrospective analysis of clindamycin, tindazole, doxycycline, cefoxitin and lamoxactam. Infection 10, 144–148 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01640764

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01640764

Keywords

Navigation