http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.

gov/pubmed/17554568
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007 Jul;26(7):501-4.
Flucloxacillin treatment of Staphylococcus aureus meningitis.
Ritchie SR1, Rupali P, Roberts SA, Thomas MG.
Author information
Abstract
In this paper, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of flucloxacillin treatment of meningitis caused by
methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. We identified 33 patients with meningitis due to S. aureus;
eight had community-acquired meningitis and 25 had neurosurgical meningitis. Six of the eight patients
with community-acquired meningitis were cured. Eighteen of the 22 patients treated
with flucloxacillin were cured without relapse (86%, 95%CI 65-97%) and their cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)
cultures were sterile after a median of 3 days of treatment. The cure rate for 12 patients who also
received an additional antibiotic at the outset of treatment was 75% (95%CI 43-95%). This was not
different to the cure rate for the ten patients who received flucloxacillin alone 90% (95%CI 56-100%).
We conclude that flucloxacillin is an effective treatment for meningitis caused by S. aureus.
PMID: 17554568

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8396081
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993 Jun;31 Suppl E:103-9.
A comparative study of the efficacy, safety and tolerance of azithromycin, dicloxacillin
and flucloxacillin in the treatment of children with acute skin and skin-structure infections.
Rodriguez-Solares A1, Pérez-Gutiérrez F, Prosperi J, Milgram E, Martin A.
Author information
Abstract
An open, randomized, multicentre study was undertaken to compare a three-day regimen of
azithromycin with a seven-day course of dicloxacillin orflucloxacillin in the treatment of 118 children
(aged 2-12 years) with clinically diagnosed acute skin and skin-structure infections. Sixty patients
received a single daily dose of azithromycin of 10 mg/kg for three days, whilst 58 received a cloxacillin
ester: either dicloxacillin (n = 49) at a daily dose of 12.5-25 mg/kg (depending on severity of infection);
or flucloxacillin (n = 9) at 250-2000 mg/day (depending on age). Both cloxacillin esters were
administered in four divided doses for seven days. Clinical, safety and, where possible, bacteriological
assessments were made before therapy and after 3 to 5 and 7 to 10 days of treatment. A successful
clinical response (cure and improvement) was recorded in 57 of 59 (97%) of evaluable azithromycin
patients, and in 57 of 58 (98%) of cloxacillin ester patients. Eradication of the key pathogens was 31 of
34 (91%) and 34 of 35 (97%) for Staphylococcus aureus, and 5 of 5 and 4 of 4 for Streptococcus
pyogenes in the azithromycin and cloxacillin ester groups, respectively. Both medications were well
tolerated, with mild to moderate side-effects (abdominal pain and vomiting) occurring in two patients in
each group, and laboratory abnormalities (elevated eosinophil count) in one patient in each group.
There were no withdrawals from therapy. The results of this study suggest that azithromycin is as
effective and as well tolerated as a cloxacillin ester antibiotic in the treatment of children with acute skin
and skin-structure infections.
PMID: 8396081

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09546639609086875?journalCode=ijdt20
 Journal of Dermatological Treatment
Volume 7, Issue 3, 1996

Original Article

Cefadroxil compared with flucloxacillin for skin and soft tissue

infection
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cefadroxil once daily as compared
to flucloxacillin twice daily in skin and soft tissue infections. The patients were given either
Cefamox 1 g once daily or Heracillin 1.5 g (tablets twice daily or suspension three times daily) for
10 days in this randomized single-blind multicentre study. Of 661 patients aged 3–81 years, 651
qualified for the evaluation of adverse events, 642 for the intention-to-treat analysis of efficacy
and 327 for the primary statistical evaluation of efficacy. The incidence of adverse events was
similar for both drugs (cefadroxil 30%, flucloxacillin 36%). The clinical results of the treatments
were satisfactory, with 97% of the patients being healed or improved in both groups. Treatment
with cefadroxil 1 g once daily was equivalent to flucloxacillin twice or three times daily in the
treatment of skin and soft tissue infections.

http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/
20013035556.html;jsessionid=7D6BDF73EDB5509BDAE43A73F43215C8
Document details
Title
A comparison of fusidic acid tablets and flucloxacillin capsules in skin and soft tissue infection.
Authors
Morris, C. D. E.; Talbot, D. T.
Journal
Journal of Drug Assessment 2000 Vol. 3 No. 1 pp. 33-46
ISSN
1369-9474
Record Number
20013035556
Abstract
This multicentre, randomized, double blind, parallel group study, conducted in 1994-95, compared
fusidic acid (250 mg, bid) and flucloxacillin (250 mg qds) in patients with skin and soft tissue infections
[UK]. Treatment was taken for five days by all patients and for a further five days if the condition
remained uncured. In patients cured at the end of treatment, a follow-up assessment was carried out 14
days later. Both treatments were effective. At the end of treatment the physician rated the condition as
"cured/improved" for 182 (76%) of the 240 patients who took fusidic acid and for 189 (81%) of the 233
patients who took flucloxacillin (intention to treat population; P=0.16). Cure was maintained at the
follow-up assessment for 94% (138 of 147) and 91% (139 of 153) in the fusidic acid and flucloxacillin
groups, respectively. Bacteriological efficacy was rated as a success for 94% (64 of 68) who received
fusidic acid and 97% (55 of 57) who took flucloxacillin. Cost effectiveness of flucloxacillin appeared
greater in the intention to treat population, whilst fusidic acid appeared more cost effective in patients
with a bacteriologically proven infection. Both treatments were well tolerated. Approximately 30% of
patients in each group had adverse events. Diarrhoea was the most commonly reported adverse drug
reaction (fusidic acid 6%, flucloxacillin 5%).
Up to 11,016,908 more results found for "???"