Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Eighty-four cancer patients at risk of infection because of neutropenia were randomized to receive nalidixic acid as an alternative to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) for infection prophylaxis. Infections were documented significantly earlier and more often among patients who entered the trial with neutrophil counts of less than 0.1 X 10(9)/liter. TMP-SMX recipients experienced fewer microbiologically documented infections and bacteremias and were free of infection for a higher proportion of days with severe neutropenia (less than 0.1 X 10(9)/liter) than nalidixic acid recipients. Gram-negative bacillary and Staphylococcus aureus infections accounted for the major differences. Although the majority of aerobic gram-negative bacilli were eliminated from the feces after 1 week of prophylaxis with either agent, TMP-SMX was proved superior to nalidixic acid in this regard and was associated with acquired drug resistance by gram-negative bacilli less frequently. Both agents selected for colonization and subsequent infection by gram-positive cocci. Our data suggest that prophylaxis is most likely to be effective if administered to patients for at least 1 week before they become severely neutropenic. Nalidixic acid used as a single agent in doses of 4 g daily, however, cannot be recommended as an alternative to TMP-SMX for infection prophylaxis in neutropenic cancer patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bow et al. (1987) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: