Drugs

, Volume 35, Supplement 2, pp 169–177 | Cite as

A Randomised Prospective Comparison of Cefotaxime versus Netilmicin/Penicillin for Treatment of Suspected Neonatal Sepsis

  • M. A. Hall
  • D. A. Ducker
  • J. A. Lowes
  • J. McMichael
  • P. Clarke
  • D. Rowe
  • A. Gordon
  • D. S. Cole
Section 4: Further Clinical Experiences and Studies of Tolerability with Cefotaxime

Summary

In an open prospective study performed in 2 neonatal units, infants with suspected neonatal sepsis (SNS) of unknown microbial cause were randomly allocated to receive treatment with either cefotaxime (CTX) or netilmicin plus penicillin (N + P). 236 patients were entered into the trial, of whom 222 were evaluable. The number of ‘definitely’ and ‘probably’ infected babies was similar in both groups. There was no difference in clinical outcome between patients in the 2 treatment groups and no side effects were recorded for either of the antibiotic regimens.

Antibiotic sensitivity testing of bacterial isolates from peripheral sites showed almost universal sensitivity of potential pathogens to both antibiotic regimens at the start of treatment in all infants. Thereafter, organisms resistant to CTX were isolated from patients in both treatment groups, possibly reflecting the antibiotic sensitivity profile of the colonising bacteria in both neonatal units.

The results of this study indicate that either CTX or N + P are suitable, in our units, for the ‘blind’ treatment of early SNS. In units where listerial infections are prevalent, specific cover should be added to CTX. For SNS developing after admission, the choice of antibiotics will depend upon the background antibiotic sensitivity profile of the colonising bacteria.

Keywords

Cefotaxime Antibiotic Regimen Netilmicin Antibiotic Sensitivity Neonatal Unit 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ablow RC, Driscoll SG, Effman EL, Gross I, Jolies CJ, et al. A comparison of early onset group B streptococcal neonatal infection and the respiratory distress syndrome of the newborn. New England Journal of Medicine 294: 65–70, 1976PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker CJ, Rench MA. Commercial latex agglutination for detection of group B streptococcal antigen in body fluids. Journal of Pediatrics 102: 393–395, 1983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumer JC, Reed MD. Clinical pharmacology of aminoglycoside antibiotics in pediatrics. Pediatric Clinics of North America 30: 195–208, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. de Louvois J, Mulhall A, Hurley R. The safety and pharmacokinetics of cefotaxime in the treatment of neonates. Pediatric Pharmacologica 2: 275–284, 1982Google Scholar
  5. Editorial. Neonatal bacteraemia: diagnosis and management. British Medical Journal 2: 1385, 1979Google Scholar
  6. Elias-Jones AC. A randomised comparative study of ceftazidime versus gentamicin plus benzylpenicillin in neonates with signs of serious infections. Insights into the Treatment of Serious Infections 1: 191–197, 1985Google Scholar
  7. Hall MA, Beech RC, Seal DV. The use of cefotaxime for treating suspected neonatal sepsis: 2 years’ experience. Journal of Hospital Infection 8: 57–63, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kafetzis DA, Brater DC, Kapili AN, Papas CV, Dellagrammaticus H, et al. Treatment of severe neonatal infections with cefotaxime. Efficacy and pharmacokinetics. Journal of Pediatrics 100: 483–489, 1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klaus MH, Fanaroff AA. Care of the high-risk neonate, p. 281, W.B. Saunders Co., Eastbourne, 1979Google Scholar
  10. Low DC, Bissenden JG, Wise R. Ceftazidime in neonatal infections. Archives of Disease in Childhood 60: 360–364, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miller ME. Host defenses in the human neonate. Pediatric Clinics of North America 24: 413–423, 1977PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Neu HC, Labthavikul P. Comparative in vitro activity of N-formimidoyl thienamycin against Gram positive and Gram negative aerobic and anaerobic species and its beta-lactamase stability. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 21: 180–187, 1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Philip AGS. Decreased use of antibiotics using a neonatal sepsis screening technique. Journal of Pediatrics 98: 795–799, 1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Philip AGS, Hewitt JR. Early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Pediatrics 65: 1036–1041, 1980PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Placzek M, Whitelaw A, Want S, Sahathevan M, Darrell J. Piperacillin in early neonatal infection. Archives of Disease in Childhood 58: 1006–1009, 1983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Siegel JD, McCracken Jr GH. Sepsis neonatorum. New England Journal of Medicine 304: 642–647, 1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Snelling S, Hart CA, Cooke RWI. Ceftazidime or gentamicin plus benzylpenicillin in neonates less than 48 hours old. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 12 (Suppl. A): 353–356, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Vesikari T, Janas M, Gronroos P, Tuppurainen N, Renlund M, et al. Neonatal septicaemia. Archives of Disease in Childhood 60: 542–546, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Webb BJ, Baker CJ. Commercial latex agglutination test for rapid diagnosis.of group B streptococcal infection in infants. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 12: 442–444, 1980PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ADIS Press Limited 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Hall
    • 1
  • D. A. Ducker
    • 2
  • J. A. Lowes
    • 1
  • J. McMichael
    • 1
  • P. Clarke
    • 1
  • D. Rowe
    • 1
  • A. Gordon
    • 2
  • D. S. Cole
    • 3
  1. 1.Special Care Baby UnitPrincess Anne HospitalSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.All Saints’ HospitalChathamUK
  3. 3.Roussel LaboratoriesUxbridgeUK

Personalised recommendations