Complicated Urinary Tract Infections Treated with Extended-Release Ciprofloxacin with Emphasis on Pseudomonas aeruginosa

References

• Kumazawa J, Matsumoto T. Complicated urinary tract infections. In: Bergen T, ed. Urinary Tract Infections. Infectiology. Basel: Karger. 1997; 1: 19–26.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin RH, Shapiro ED, Andriole VT, Davis RJ, Stamm WE. Evaluation of new anti-infective drugs for the treatment of urinary tract infection. Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Food and Drug Administration. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15 (Suppl 1): 16–27.
   Google Scholar
• Wisplinghoff H, Bischoff T, Tallent SM, Seifert H, Wenzel RP, Edmond MB. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: Analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 309–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox CE, Marbury TC, Pittman WG et al. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparison of gatifloxacin versus ciprofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection and pyelonephritis. Clin Ther 2002; 24 (2): 223–236.
   Google Scholar
• Klimberg IW, Cox CE II, Fowler CL, King W, Kim SS, Callery-D'Amico S. A controlled trial of levofloxacin and lome-floxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection. Urology 1998; 51 (4): 610–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harding G, Nicolle L, Wenman W et al. Randomized comparison of oral ciprofloxacin vs standard parenteral thera-py in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Drugs 1993; 45 (Suppl 3): 333–334.
   Google Scholar
• Cox CE. A comparison of the safety and efficacy of lomefloxacin and ciprofloxacin in the treatment of complicated or recurrent urinary tract infections. Am J Med 1992; 92 (Suppl 4A): 82S-86S.
   Google Scholar
• Schaeffer AJ, Anderson RU. Efficacy and tolerability of norfloxacin vs. ciprofloxacin in complicated urinary tract infec-tion. Urology 1992; 40 (5): 446–449.
   Google Scholar
• Fang G, Brennen C, Wagener M et al. Use of ciprofloxacin versus use of aminoglycosides for therapy of complicated urinary tract infection: prospective, randomized clinical and pharmacokinetic study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35 (9): 1849–1855.
   Google Scholar
• Naber KG, Bartnicki A, Bischoff W et al. Gatifloxacin 200 mg or 400 mg once daily is as effective as ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily for the treatment of patients with acute pyelonephritis or complicated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2004; 23 (Suppl 1): S41-S53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolle LE, Louie TJ, Dubois J, Martel A, Harding GK, Sinave CP. Treatment of complicated urinary tract infections with lomefloxacin compared with that with trimethoprim-sul-famethoxazole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38 (6): 1368–1373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allais JM, Preheim LC, Cuevas TA, Roccaforte JS, Mellencamp MA, Bittner MJ. Randomized, double-blind com-parison of ciprofloxacin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for complicated urinary tract infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 32 (9): 1327–1330.
   Google Scholar
• Talan DA, Klimberg IW, Nicolle LE, Song J, Kowalsky SF, Church DA. Once daily, extended release ciprofloxacin for complicated urinary tract infections and acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis. J Urol 2004; 171 (2 Pt 1): 734-739.
   Google Scholar
• peng M-Y. Randomized, double-blind, comparative study of levofloxacin and ofloxacin in the treatment of compli-cated urinary tract infections. J Microbial Immunol Infect 1999; 32 (1): 33-39.
   Google Scholar
• Cardenas DD, Hooton TM. Urinary tract infection in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995; 76 (3): 272–280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1990.
   Google Scholar
• McCarty JM, Richard G, Huck W et al. A randomized trial of short-course ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, or trimetho-prim/sulfamethoxazole for the treatment of acute urinary tract infection in women. Ciprofloxacin Urinary Tract Infection Group. Am J Med 1999; 106 (3): 292–299.
   Google Scholar
• Hooton TM, Winter C, Tiu F, Stamm WE. Randomized comparative trial and cost analysis of 3-day antimicrobial regi-mens for treatment of acute cystitis in women. JAMA 1995; 273 (1): 41–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masterton RG, Bochsler JA. High-dosage co-amoxiclav in a single dose versus 7 days of co-trimoxazole as treatment of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infection in women. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 35 (1): 129–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raz R, Chazan B, Kennes Y et al. Empiric use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) in the treatment of women with uncomplicated urinary tract infections, in a geo-graphical area with a high prevalence of TMP-SMX-resistant uropathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34 (9): 1165–1169.
   Google Scholar
• Pertel PE, Haverstock D. Risk factors for a poor out-come after therapy for acute pyelonephritis. BJU Int 2006; 98 (1): 141–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronald A. The etiology of urinary tract infection: tradi-tional and emerging pathogens. Am J Med 2002; 113 (Suppl 1A): 14S-19S.
   Google Scholar
• Poppel HV, Wegge M, Dammekens H, Chysky V. Ciprofloxacin in the treatment of urinary tract infection in patients with multiple sclerosis. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986; 5 (2): 251–253.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith PW, Seip CW, Schaefer SC, Bell-Dixon C. Microbiologic survey of long-term care facilities. Am J Infect Control 2000; 28 (1): 8–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown EM, Morris R, Stephenson TP. The efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin in the treatment of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa urinary tract infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986; 18 (Suppl D): 123-127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raveh D, Rosenzweig I, Rudensky B, Wiener-Well Y, Yinnon AM. Risk factors for bacteriuria due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Enterococcus spp in patients hospitalized via the emergency department. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2006; 25 (5): 331–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar