Abstract.
Twenty patients with urinary tuberculosis were treated with ofloxacin (200 mg/day, 6 months), rifampin (600 mg/day, 3 months) and isoniazid (300 mg/day, 3 months) between 1989 and 1990. All patients were new cases, diagnosed by observation and/or isolation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in one of the three morning urine samples. Bacteriological culture conversion (negativization) was assessed as a clinical guide of efficacy, comparing it, as the only parameter, against a control group (150 patients) with urinary tuberculosis who received conventional therapy. Bacteriological follow-up studies were performed in both groups monthly for 6 months, then again 6 months later and then every year for 10 years after completion of treatment. In the 20 patients, the initial culture was positive with over 100 colonies per culture (>50%); the smear was positive in 45% of the patients (most were 2+). All strains were susceptible to rifampin, isoniazid and ofloxacin. Two patients discontinued treatment. Beginning with the first month of treatment, the bacteriological conversion was 100%, 89.5% and 100% in the remaining controls. In the control group, which received conventional treatment, the conversion was: 90%, 87%, 93% and 100% in the remaining controls. Treatment with ofloxacin resulted in a bacteriological conversion similar to that following conventional treatment (p>0.05, Fisher's exact test). After 10 years of patient follow-up, we conclude that ofloxacin, in combination with rifampin and isoniazid (both for 3 months only is effective against M. tuberculosis, providing satisfactory bacteriological and clinical efficacy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Electronic Publication
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Castiñeiras, A.A., Pérez-Pascual, P., Zarranz, E.J. et al. Bacteriological conversion in twenty urinary tuberculosis patients treated with ofloxacin, rifampin and isoniazid: a 10-year follow-up study. Int Microbiol 5, 139–144 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10123-002-0074-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10123-002-0074-z