Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:29:48.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A double-blind comparative study of Trimethoprim-Polymyxin B versus Trimethoprim-Sulfacetamide-Polymyxin B otic solutions in the treatment of otorrhea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

Maurice C. Gydé
Maurice C. Gydé
Affiliation:
Winnipeg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This was a double-blind randomized study to compare the safety and efficacy of timethoprim-polymyxin B (TP) and trimethoprim-sulfacetamide-polymyxin B (TSP) drops in the treatment of otorrhea. The 68 cases treated suffered from external otitis, recurrent otitis, recurrent otitis media with tympanic membrance perforation, or infected mastoid cavities and post-operative tympanoplasties. The TP ototopical solution was successful in 60·6 per cent of cases compared to 88·6 per cent of cases with TSP. These rates were statistically different using the Chi Square with Yates' correction method.

There were no sings of ototoxicity, fungal infection overgrowth or local sensitivity to either of the solutions.

The study has shown that both drugs are equally safe and that TSP is significantly more effective in the treatment of otorrhea.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 95 , Issue 3 , March 1981 , pp. 251 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barber, M. (1965) Drug combinations in antibacterial chemotherapy. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 990–995.Google Scholar
Burchall, J. J., and Hitchings, G. H. (1955) Inhibitor binding analysis of dihydrofolate reductases from various species. Molecular Pharmacology, 1, 126–136.Google Scholar
Bushby, S. R. M. (1960) Combined antibacterial action in vitro of trimethoprim and sulfonamides. Post Graduate Medical Journal, Supplement 45, 10–17.Google Scholar
Bushby, S. R. M. (1976) Trimethoprim and polymyxin B versus trimethoprim and sulfacetamide and polymyxin B. Wellcome Research Laboratories Doc. N. TMAC/76/2, 29 March. (On file at Burroughs Wellcome Ltd.)Google Scholar
Bushby, S. R. M., and Hitchings, G. H. (1958) Trimethoprim, a sulfonamide potentiator. British Journal of Pharmacology and Chemotherapy, 33, 72–90.Google Scholar
Gydé, M. C., and Randall, R. F. (1978) Étude comparative à double insu de la triméthoprime-sulfacetamide-polymyxine B et de la gentamicine dans le traitement de l'otorrhee. Annales d' Otolaryngologie (Paris), 95, 43–45.Google Scholar
Handley, P. S. et al. (1974) Polymyxin plus sulphonamide. Microbios, 10, 211.Google Scholar
Kuipers, J. S. (1976) Combinations of Antimicrobial Agents. III. The in vitro sensitivity of 12 strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and 12 strains of Proteus species to sulphamethoxazole & trimethoprim (Co-trimoxazole), polymyxins and combinations of Co-trimoxazole and polymyxins. Archivum Chirurgicum Neerlandicum, 28 (2), 91–99.Google Scholar
Noball, E. W. P., Sewards, H. F. B., and Waterworth, P. M. (1962) Successful treatment of a case of Proteus septicaemia. British Medical Journal, 2, 1101–1102.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, J. E., and Stewart, P. R. (1974) Combined activity of sulfamethoxazole, trimethoprim and polymyxin B against Gram-negative bacilli. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 6(1), 84–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russel, F. E., and Herman, L. L. (1963) Synergism between sulphonamide drugs and antibiotics of the polymyxin group against Proteus sp. in vitro. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 16, 362–366.Google Scholar
Simmons, N. A. (1970) Colistin, sulphamethoxazole, and trimethoprim in synergy against Gram-negative bacteria. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 23, 757–764.Google Scholar