COMPARISON OF THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF ISEPAMICIN AND AMIKACIN IN THE TREATMENT OF URINARY TRACT INFECTION IN CHILDREN

Year 2003, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 107 - 112, 03.12.2016

Arif Bahar Ferhan Karademir Tolga Unsur Mustafa Özyurt İsmail Göçmen

Abstract

Objective: In this study we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of isepamicin versus amikacin at a dose of 7.5 mg/kg of body weight twice daily for 10-14 days in children with urinary tract infections (UTI).
Methods: One hundred and seventeen patients with urinary tract infection were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized to treatment with isepamicin or amikacin in a 1:2 ratio. Urinary tract infections were treated with isepamicin (n=42), or amikacin (n=75).
Results: The most commonly isolated
pathogens were Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus spp., Klebsiella pneumonia, Proteus mirabilis and Enterobacter spp. The overall clinical response rate at the end of treatment was excellent in all treatment groups (93.0/93.4% cured) with no significant differences between isepamicin and amikacin in patients with infections. None of the patients had a life-threatening or severe adverse event that required discontinuation of the drug.
Conclusion: Isepamicin was shown to be as effective and as well tolerated as amikacin in the treatment of urinary tract infections in pediatric patients.

Keywords

Isepamicin, Amikacin, Aminoglycoside, Pediatrics

References

• Krasinski KM. Urinary tract infections. In: Katz SL, Gershon A A, flotez PJ.(eds) Krugman's Infectious Diseases of Children. I Oth edition. St Louis, Missouri. Mosby Year Book, 1998: 606-619.
• Wald ER. Cystitis and pyelonephritis. In: Feigin RD, Cherry JD, Demmler GJ, Kaplan SL, eds. Textbook of Pediatric Infectious Disease. 5th edition. Phyiadelphia; Saunder, 2004: 541- 553.
• Johnson JG, Hardin TC. Aminoglycosides, imipenem, and aztreonam. Clin Pediatr Med Surg 1992; 9: 443-464.
• Shimizu K, Kumada T, Hsieh W, et al. Comparison of aminoglycoside resistance patterns in Japan, Formosa and Korea, Chile and the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 28: 282-288.
• Sturm W. Isepamicin versus amikacin in the treatment of urinary tract infection. J Chemother 1995; 7: 149-154.
• Vigano A, Principi H. A randomised comparison of isepamicin and amikacin in the treatment of bacterial infections in paediatric patients. J Chemother 1995; 7: 95-101.
• Miller GH, Sabatelli FJ, Tiaples L, et al. The most frequently occuring aminoglycoside resistance mechanism-combined results of surveys in eight regions of the world. J Chemother 1995; 7: 17-30.
• Gur D, Tutar I, Unlu GV, et al. Isepamisinin hastane izolatı gram-negatif bakterilere karşı invitro etkisi. Hastane Inf Derg 2001; 5: 19-
• Over U, Gur D, Ünal S, et al. The changing nature of aminoglycoside resistance mechanism and prevalence of newly recognised resistance mechanism in Turkey. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001; 7: 470-478.
• McCracken GH. Aminoglycoside toxicity in infants and children. Am J Med 1986; 80: 172-178.
• Scaglione F, Vigano A, Colucci R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of isepamicin in paediatric patients. J Chemother 1995; 7: 63-69.
• Skaer TL. Dosing considerations in the pediatric patients. Clin Ther 1991; 13:526- 544.
• Rodrigez-fioriega E, Esparza-Ahumada S, Morfín-Otero R. Comparison oí the efficacy and safety of isepamicin and amikacin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. J Chemother 1995; 7: 155-160.
• Tulkens PM. nephrotoxicity of aminoglycosides. Toxicol Lett 1989; 46: 107-123.
• Tulkens PM. Pharmacokinetic and toxicological evaluation of the once-a-day regimen versus conventional schedules of netilmicin and amikacin. Chemother 1991; 27: 49-61.
• Tulkens PM, et at. Efficacy and safety of aminoglycosides once-a-day; Experimental and clinical d