Compounding Medication for Digestive Decontamination: Pharmaceutical Aspects

  • Rients Schootstra
  • Jan P. Yska


To assess the effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on respiratory tract infections and survival of patients treated in an intensive care unit, meta-analyses of clinical studies comparing patients treated with selective decontamination and untreated controls have been carried out. Analyses of these studies have shown a protective effect of selective decontamination on infections. On the other hand, the mortality benefit has been shown only recently [1]. Earlier studies with historical controls and randomised trials showed that mortality was not significantly different between treatment and control patients. The evidence from these studies is consistent with an effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on survival of patients in the intensive care unit, in addition to a clear preventive effect on the occurrence of respiratory tract infections [2]–[12].


Good Manufacturing Practice Material Safety Data Sheet Selective Decontamination Material Safety Data Sheet Preparation Instruction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    De Jonge E, Schultz MJ, Spanjaard L et al (2003) Effects of selective decontamination of digestive tract on mortality and acquisition of resistant bacteria in intensive care: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 362:1011–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lode H, Höffken G, Kemmerich B et al (1992) Systemic and endotracheal antibiotic prophylaxis of nosocomial pneumonia in ICU. Intensive Care Med 18[Suppl 1]:24–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kimura A, Mochizuki T, Nishizawa K et al (1998) Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia in severely burned patients. J Trauma 45:383–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sirvent JM, Torres A, El-Ebiary M et al (1997) Protective effect of intravenously administered cefuroxime against nosocomial pneumonia in patients with structural coma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 155:1729–1734PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nathens AB, Marshall JC (1999) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in surgical patients: a systematic review of the evidence. Arch Surg 134:170–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Amico R, Pifferi S, Leonetti C et al (1998) Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in critically ill adult patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 316:1275–1285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hurley JC (1995) Prophylaxis with enteral antibiotics in ventilated patients: selective decontamination or selective cross-infection? (PMID: 7786000) Antimicrob Agents Chemother 39:941–947PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kollef MH (1994) The role of selective digestive tract decontamination on mortality and respiratory tract infections. A meta-analysis. Chest 105:1101–1108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R et al (1994) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract. An overview. Chest 105:1221–1229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract Trialists’ Collaborative Group (1993) Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. BMJ 307:525–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Vandenbroucke JP (1992) Effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on respiratory tract infections and mortality in the intensive care unit. Lancet 338:859–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Saene HK, Stoutenbeek CP, Hart CA (1991) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) in intensive care patients: a critical evaluation of the clinical, bacteriological and epidemiological benefits. J Hosp Infect 18:261–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Korinek AM, Laisne MJ, Nicolas MH et al (1993) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in neurosurgical intensive care unit patients: a double-blind, randomized, placebocontrolled study. Crit Care Med 21:1466–1473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silvestri L, Milanese M, Oblach L et al (2002) Enteral vancomycin to control methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus outbreak in mechanically ventilated patients. Am J Infect Control 30:391–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de la Cal MA, Cerdá E, van Saene HK et al (2004) Effectiveness and safety of enteral vancomycin to control endemicity of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a medical/surgical intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect 56:175–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cerdá E, Abella A, de la Cal MA et al (2007) Enteral vancomycin controls methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endemicity in an intensive care burn unit: a 9-year prospective study. Ann Surg 245:397–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taxis K, Barber ND (1993) Ethnographic study of incidence and severity of intravenous drug errors. BMJ 326(7391):684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Department of Health (2001) Building a safer NHS for patients. London: Stationery OfficeGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Institute of Medicine Committee on the Quality of Health Care in America (2000) To err is human. Washington: National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thur MP, Miller WA, Latiolais CJ (1972) Medication errors in a nurse-controlled parenteral admixture program. Am J Hosp Pharm 29:298–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hartley GM, Dhillon S (1998) An observational study of the prescribing and administration of intravenous drugs in a general hospital. Int J Pharm Pract 6:38–45Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Hare, MCB, Gallagher T, Shields MD (1995) Errors in the administration of intravenous drugs. BMJ 310:1536–1537PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clark CM, Bailie GR, Whitaker AM et al (1986) Parenteral drug delivery-value for money? Pharm J 236:453–455Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird N et al (1991) Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 324:370–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N et al (1991) The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 324:377–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gawande A (2002) Complications. New York: Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & CoGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taylor FO (March 1947) Quality control. J Am Pharm Assoc III(3)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    MSDS database at http://www.ohsah.bc.caGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Le Brun PPH, Graaf AI de, Vinks AATMM (2000) A high performance liquid chromatographic method for the determination of colistin in serum. Ther Drug Monit 22:589–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Trissel LA (2000) Stability of Compounded Formulations 2nd edn. Washington DC: American Pharmaceutical AssociationGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilkinson JM, McDonald C, Parkin JE et al (1998) A high-performance liquid-chromatography assay for amphotericin B in a hydrophilic colloidal paste base. J Pharm Biomed Anal 17:751–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dentinger PJ, Swenson CF, Anaizi NH (2001) Stability of amphotericin B in an extemporaneously compounded oral suspension. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 58:1021–1024PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lue LP, Hadman ST, Vancura A (2002) Liquid chromatographic determination of amphotericin B in different pharmaceuticals. J AOAC Int 85:15–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Feron B, Adair CG, Gorman SP et al (1993) Interaction of sucralfate with antibiotics used for selective decontamination of the gastrointestinal tract. Am J Hosp Pharm 50:2550–2553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Li J, Milne RW, Nation RL et al (2003) Stability of colistin and colistin methanesulfonate in aqueous media and plasma as determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47:1364–1370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suggested readings

  1. Medicinal products for human and veterinary use: Good manufacturing practices. Commission Directive 2003/94/EC. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2003Google Scholar
  2. Quality in the manufacture of medicines and other healthcare products (2000) Sharp J. London: Pharmaceutical PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Guidance for Industry Q7A Good Manufacturing Practice Guidance for active pharmaceutical ingredients. Rockville MD: ICH, 2001Google Scholar
  4. European Pharmacopoeia Fifth Edition. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2005Google Scholar
  5. The United States Pharmacopoeia 29th Edition. Rockville, MD: United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 2006Google Scholar
  6. GMP Hospital Pharmacy. The Hague: Dutch Association of Hospital Pharmacists (NVZA), 1998Google Scholar
  7. PIC/S Guide to good practices for preparation of medicinal products in pharmacies. Draft 2. Geneva: PIC/S, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rients Schootstra
    • 1
  • Jan P. Yska
    • 2
  1. 1.Pharma AssistHoogeveenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Hospital PharmacyMedical Centre LeeuwardenLeeuwardenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations