Overview. Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole: An Assessment of More Than 12 Years of Use

Salter, A. J.

doi:10.1093/clinids/4.2.196

Cited by 70 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 226 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bacterial pathogens known to be intrinsically resistant to TMP are fewer than susceptible ones. TMP is also active against certain types of malaria (18,54) and, in combination with sulfonamides, against Pneumocystis carinii (67), although TMP alone has only very weak activity against the DHFR of P. carinii (2).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Synergy found between TMP and sulfonamides led to the clinical use of these drugs in combination in the United Kingdom and the United States in 1968 and worldwide soon after (17). A TMP-sulfonamide combination has been efficacious in the treatment of a variety of different infections (67). Because of side effects caused by sulfonamides and clinical outcome equivalent to that obtained with TMP alone in the treatment of urinary and respiratory tract infections (5,13,47,50,51), TMP has also been used clinically alone.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trimethoprim resistance

Huovinen

1987

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trimethoprim resistance

Huovinen

1987

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous studies have shown that the disposition of trimethoprim and sulphamethoxazole is not altered when given together [17,181; therefore, the treatment in which only these two drugs were administered serves as the reference for each respective drug in the combination treatments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A pharmacokinetic interaction study of didanosine coadministered with trimethoprim and/or sulphamethoxazole in HIV seropositive asymptomatic male patients

Srinivas¹,

Knupp²,

Batteiger

et al. 1996

Brit J Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

R. A. SMITH3 1 The pharmacokinetics of didanosine, trimethoprim, and sulphamethoxazole were evaluated in ten HIV seropositive asymptomatic patients as single agents and upon coadministration of single doses. 2 Using a randomized, balanced incomplete block crossover study with at least a 1–week washout period between successive treatments, each patient under fasting conditions received four of the following five treatments: 200 mg didanosine as a single agent; 200 mg trimethoprim +1000 mg sulphamethoxazole; 200 mg trimethoprim + 200 mg didanosine; 1000 mg sulphamethoxazole + 200 mg of didanosine and; 200 mg trimethoprim +1000 mg sulphamethoxazole + 200 mg didanosine. 3 Serial blood and urine samples were collected following the administration of each treatment. Plasma and urine samples were analyzed using high‐pressure liquid chromatography (h.p.l.c.)/ultraviolet assays specific for unchanged didanosine, trimethoprim and/or sulphamethoxazole. 4 Percent urinary recovery (%UR) and renal clearance (CLR) emerged as consistently affected parameters, being decreased in the case of didanosine (35%, P= 0.016) and trimethoprim (32%, P= 0.019) and increased in the case of sulphamethoxazole (39%, P= 0.079), when all three agents were coadministered. The magnitude of the changes in didanosine CLR and %UR values was no greater when both trimethoprim and sulphamethoxazole were coadministered vs when each single agent was given with didanosine, suggesting that any effect was not additive. 5 Other key parameters such as Cmax AUC, and t1/2 for didanosine (1309.9 ng ml‐1, 1796.9 ng ml‐1 h, and 1.61 h, respectively), trimethoprim (1.96 pg ml‐1, 22.86 μg ml‐1 h, and 9.03 h, respectively) or sulphamethoxazole (58.62 μg ml‐1, 799.7 μg ml‐1 h and 9.84 h, respectively) were not affected when didanosine was coadministered with either trimethoprim (didanosine: 1751.9 ng ml‐1, 2158.0 ng ml‐1 h, and 1.28 h; trimethoprim: 1.81 μg ml‐1, 28.89 μg ml‐1 h, and 11.4 h), sulphamethoxazole (didanosine: 1279.3 ng ml‐1, 1793.2 ng ml‐1 h, and 1.61 h; sulphamethoxazole: 53.57 μg ml‐1, 732.1 μg ml‐1 h, and 8.95 h), or the combination of trimethoprim and sulphamethoxazole (didanosine: 1283.7 μg ml‐1, 1941.8 ng ml‐1 h, and 1.38 h; trimethoprim: 1.59 μg ml‐1, 26.68 μg ml‐1 h, and 11.3 h; sulphamethoxazole: 59.48 μg ml‐1, 760.9 μg ml‐1 h, and 9.47 h). 6 Because the observed differences in CLR and %UR are small and not considered to be clinically relevant, it is not necessary to alter the dosing regimens of didanosine, trimethoprim or sulphamethoxazole when administered in combination to HIV seropositive patients.

show abstract

“…The same speculation also applied to the acquisition of plasmid-mediated resistance (13). During the last 15 years, TMP-SMX has been regarded as the first-line drug for the curative and prophylactic management of patients with urinary tract infection (UTI; 6,15,18,19), and indeed it has been the initial therapeutic agent in over 91% of our patients. However, by 1972 Lacey et al (9) had already found a 2.5% incidence of resistance to TMP among urinary bacterial isolates, and later Freuensgaard and Komer (5) and Huovinen and Toivanen (8) reported increasing resistance, up to 30.1%, to TMP or TMP-SMX.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The organisms were tested for susceptibility to TMP-SMX, ampicillin, cephalosporins, and nitrofurantoin during the whole period and were also tested for susceptibility to gentamicin in 1984. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other bacteria isolated mainly in laboratories B and C from hospitalized patients with complicated UTI were examined for susceptibility to gentamicin, in view of their already wellrecognized high resistance to TMP-SMX, ampicillin, and nitrofurantoin (4,6,8,18).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Five-year survey of changing patterns of susceptibility of bacterial uropathogens to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and other antimicrobial agents

Alon¹,

Davidai²,

Berant³

et al. 1987

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyzed the antibiotic susceptibility of 5,348 urinary isolates of Escherichia coli, "Klebsiella aerogenes," and Proteus mirabilis grown in three laboratories from 1980 to 1985. A continuous rise in resistance to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was observed; 63% of the strains from inpatients in 1984 and 51% of those from outpatients in 1985 were resistant to this drug. Isolates from outpatients in 1985 were mostly susceptible to nitrofurantoin (mean susceptibility, 92%) and to oral cephalosporins (mean susceptibility, 84%). As for isolates from inpatients, none of the antimicrobial agents now used was satisfactory for initial chemotherapy, indicating a need for new antibacterial strategies.

show abstract

Overview. Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole: An Assessment of More Than 12 Years of Use

Cited by 70 publications

References 226 publications

Trimethoprim resistance

Trimethoprim resistance

A pharmacokinetic interaction study of didanosine coadministered with trimethoprim and/or sulphamethoxazole in HIV seropositive asymptomatic male patients

Five-year survey of changing patterns of susceptibility of bacterial uropathogens to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and other antimicrobial agents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About