Drug therapy reviews: Nitrofurantoin

Gleckman, R A; Álvarez, Salvador; Joubert, Dennis W.

doi:10.1093/ajhp/36.3.342

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Silver alloy‐coated catheters were not associated with a statistically significant reduction in symptomatic urinary tract infection, but Nitrofurazone‐impregnated catheters and minocycline and rifampicin‐impregnated catheters significantly reduced the risk of infection. Nitrofurazone has bactericidal activity in the concentrations reached in the genitourinary tract and antimicrobial spectrum for gram‐positive and gram‐negative bacteria, except for the Serratia sp, Pseudomonas sp, and some species of Proteus sp Nitrofurazone interferes in the Krebs cycle through inhibition of acetylcoenzyme A, and inhibits enzymes responsible for the synthesis of DNA, RNA, and proteins …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mean length of hospital stay (range) [27][28][29][30] Previous studies demonstrated the efficacy of nitrofurazone impregnated urinary catheters in reducing asymptomatic bacteriuria and urinary tract infections, but excluded immunosuppressed patients, along with other methodological pitfalls such as comparing different catheter materials (silicone vs latex) and misdiagnosis of asymptomatic bacteriuria and urinary tract infection. 30,31 In our study, we were not able to show a significant reduction in the rates of bacteriuria and urinary tract infection with the use of Nitrafurazone impregnated catheters, even in the subgroup analysis, excluding patients that used double J stent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A randomized clinical trial comparing Nitrofurazone‐coated and uncoated urinary catheters in kidney transplant recipients: Results from a pilot study

Menezes

Corrêa

Medina‐Pestana

et al. 2018

Transplant Infectious Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Urinary tract infections are frequent complications early after kidney transplantation, and the use of antimicrobial coated catheters in settings other than transplantation has shown promising results for infection prevention. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of Nitrofurazone‐coated silicone urinary catheters with non‐impregnated silicone urinary catheters in reducing bacteriuria and urinary tract infections in kidney transplant recipients. Methods This single‐center study, randomized controlled trial at the Hospital do Rim, a tertiary referral center in kidney transplantation, located in São Paulo, Brazil. Subjects involved living donor kidney transplant recipients, and were randomized 1:1 ratio with a computer‐generated system to a Nitrofurazone‐coated silicone urinary catheter and non‐impregnated silicone urinary catheter from March 2013 to December 2014. Patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria or urinary tract infection at baseline, deceased kidney transplant donors, patients with known hypersensitivity to nitrofurantoin, pregnancy, and those refusing to sign the informed consent form were excluded from the study. Results Two hundred fourteen subjects were randomized and one hundred seventy‐six completed the study. There were no differences in the rates of asymptomatic bacteriuria (12.5% in the Nitrofurazone group and 11.4% in the control group, P = 0.99) and urinary tract infection (8% and 6.8%, P = 0.99) and the incidence of side effects was more frequent in the Nitrofurazone‐impregnated silicone urinary catheter group (46.6% and 26.1%, P = 0.007). Conclusion The study suggests that there is no beneficial effect of the employment of Nitrofurazone‐coated urinary catheter. Trial registration number: ISRCTN57888785.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomized clinical trial comparing Nitrofurazone‐coated and uncoated urinary catheters in kidney transplant recipients: Results from a pilot study

Menezes

Corrêa

Medina‐Pestana

et al. 2018

Transplant Infectious Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1,2,17 Despite its activity against uropathogens, nitrofurantoin is not indicated for treatment of pyelonephritis, since its activity is concentration dependent and most pathogens require concentrations of 75-80 mg/ mL, which are achieved in the bladder but not the renal parenchyma. 4,18 Nitrofurantoin also remains an effective oral agent against E. coli and Klebsiella species producing extended-spectrum b-lactamases. 19,20 With increasing rates of resistance among uropathogens, antibiotic treatment options have become limited.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probable nitrofurantoin-induced bronchiolitis obliterans with organizing pneumonia

Robinson

Nyi

2009

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A well-documented adverse reaction of nitrofurantoin is haemolytic anaemia observed in patients with G6PD deficiency. Gleckman et al (1979) reviewed the literature on adverse reactions to nitrofurantoin and categorised these side effects into gastrointestinal disturbances, skin eruptions, haematological disorders, neurological defects, hepatotoxicity, pulmonary complications and miscellaneous abnormalities. Incidences of the side effects were not mentioned.…”

Section: Human Pharmacological and Toxicological Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on nitrofurans and their metabolites in food

Panel¹

2015

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nitrofurans are antimicrobial agents not authorised for use in food-producing animals in the European Union. Nitrofurans are rapidly metabolised, occurring in animal tissues as protein-bound metabolites. The European Commission requested EFSA to provide a scientific opinion on the risks to human health related to the presence of nitrofurans in food and whether a reference point for action (RPA) of 1.0 µg/kg for the marker metabolites is adequate to protect public health. Data on occurrence of nitrofuran marker metabolites in food were extracted from the national residue monitoring plan results and from the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). The CONTAM Panel concluded that these data were too limited to carry out a reliable human dietary exposure assessment. Instead, human dietary exposure was calculated for a scenario in which a single nitrofuran marker metabolite is present at 1.0 µg/kg in foods of animal origin, excluding milk and dairy products. The mean chronic dietary exposure for this worst-case scenario would range from 3.3 to 8.0 and 1.9 to 4.3 ng/kg b.w. per day for toddlers and adults, respectively. Nitrofurans and their marker metabolites, generally, are genotoxic and carcinogenic and, also, have non-neoplastic effects in animals. Margins of exposure (MOEs) were calculated at 2.0 × 10 5 or greater for carcinogenicity and at 2.5 × 10 3 or greater for non-neoplastic effects. The CONTAM Panel concluded that it is unlikely that exposure to food contaminated with nitrofuran marker metabolites at or below 1.0 µg/kg is a health concern. A scenario in which foods are considered to be contaminated with semicarbazide, from use of carrageenan as a food additive, at 1 µg/kg was used to assess whether it is appropriate to apply the RPA to foods of non-animal origin; MOEs of greater than 10 4 calculated for nonneoplastic effects do not indicate a health concern.© European Food Safety Authority, 2015 However, the opinion also identified certain categories of non-allowed pharmacologically active substances that are considered to be outside the scope of the procedure, including substances that are high potency carcinogens, such as nitrofurans. As nitrofurans are excluded from that opinion, and taking into account that the presence of SEM in food may be from sources other than use of nitrofurazone, the European Commission (EC) requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for a scientific opinion on the risks to human health related to the presence of nitrofurans and their metabolites in food. The opinion should include (a) an evaluation of the toxicity of nitrofurans and their metabolites for humans, considering all relevant toxicological endpoints and identification of the toxicological relevance of nitrofurans and their metabolites present in food, and (b) an exposure assessment of the EU population to nitrofurans and their metabolites from food, including the consumption patterns of specific (vulnerable) groups of the population. In addition, the opinion should assess the appropriateness of...

show abstract

Drug therapy reviews: Nitrofurantoin

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

A randomized clinical trial comparing Nitrofurazone‐coated and uncoated urinary catheters in kidney transplant recipients: Results from a pilot study

A randomized clinical trial comparing Nitrofurazone‐coated and uncoated urinary catheters in kidney transplant recipients: Results from a pilot study

Probable nitrofurantoin-induced bronchiolitis obliterans with organizing pneumonia

Scientific Opinion on nitrofurans and their metabolites in food

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About