Skip Navigation

Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 2002 48(5):273-279; doi:10.1093/tropej/48.5.273
© 2002 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Singhi, P.
Right arrow Articles by Ray, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Singhi, P.
Right arrow Articles by Ray, P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Seven Days vs. 10 Days Ceftriaxone Therapy in Bacterial Meningitis

Pratibha Singhi1, Monika Kaushal1, Sunit Singhi1 and Pallabh Ray2

1 Department of Pediatrics, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India 2 Department of Medical Microbiology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Ceftriaxone is recommended in children with acute bacterial meningitis (ABM) for 10 days. However, the drug is expensive, and shorter duration of therapy, if equally effective, would cut costs of therapy and hospitalization. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of 7 days vs. 10 days' ceftriaxone therapy in children with ABM. Seventy-three children aged 3 months to 12 years with ABM, consecutively admitted to hospital were enrolled. Ceftriaxone was given for 7 days to all. Randomization to group I (7 days) and group II (10 days) therapy was done on the seventh day. At the end of 7 days' therapy in group I and 10 days in group II, children were evaluated using a clinical scoring system. Children with a score of more than 10 were labelled as ‘treatment failures’ and were continued on ceftriaxone. If a score was less than 10, the antibiotic was stopped. Complications were appropriately evaluated and managed. All children were followed-up 1 month after discharge: neurodevelopmental assessment, Denver Development Screening Tests, IQ and hearing assessment were done. After excluding four patients, there were 35 children in group I and 34 in group II. The two groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, nutritional status, presenting clinical features, and CSF parameters. Organism identification was possible in 38 per cent of children: (Streptococcus pneumoniae, 21 per cent; Haemophilus influenzae, 13 per cent; meningococcus, 4 per cent). Treatment failure rate was comparable in both groups (9 in group I and 8 in group II) as was the sequelae at discharge and at 1 month (9 in group I, 15 in group II, p > 0.1). Status epilepticus and focal deficits at presentation were significantly associated with treatment failures and sequelae in both the groups (p < 0.05). Length of hospital stay was shorter in group I (10.8 ± 6.0 days) as compared with group II (14.4 ± 7.2 days, p < 0.05) and frequency of nosocomial infection was significantly more in group II (p < 0.05). It was concluded that clinical outcome of patients treated with 7 days' ceftriaxone therapy is similar to that of 10 days' therapy, and is associated with lesser nosocomial infection and earlier hospital discharge. Seven days ceftriaxone therapy may be recommended for uncomplicated ABM in children in developing countries.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.