This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by DuPont, H L Articles by Mendiola, J G Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by DuPont, H L Articles by Mendiola, J G

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984 August; 26(2): 160-163

Furazolidone versus ampicillin in the treatment of traveler's diarrhea.

H L DuPont, C D Ericsson, E Galindo, L V Wood, D Morgan, J A Bitsura and J G Mendiola

ABSTRACT

Ninety-four U.S. students who acquired diarrhea in Mexico were treated with furazolidone (47 subjects) or ampicillin (47 subjects) on a double-blind random basis. Of 47 students, 26 (55%) who received furazolidone (100 mg four times daily for 5 days) recovered from illness within 48 h after initiation of therapy, in contrast to 15 of 47 (32%) who received ampicillin (500 mg four times daily for 5 days) (P less than 0.05). Altogether, 74% of students treated with furazolidone and 49% of those receiving ampicillin were well within 72 h (P less than 0.05). When furazolidone was compared with ampicillin, clinical illness was shortened on the average from 65 to 61 h for enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli diarrhea, from 83 to 58 h for shigellosis, from 82 to 51 h for diarrhea unassociated with a detectable agent, and from 72 to 57 h for all cases irrespective of etiology. Although not dramatically effective in the current trial, the broad spectrum of activity of furazolidone is of interest. Because of in vitro activity against Campylobacter strains and known effectiveness in treating giardiasis, furazolidone should be considered in therapy for diarrhea of unknown etiology in certain settings when laboratory processing of stools for etiological agent is not feasible.

---

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984 August; 26(2): 160-163

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Shah, N., DuPont, H. L., Ramsey, D. J. (2009). Global Etiology of Travelers' Diarrhea: Systematic Review from 1973 to the Present. Am J Trop Med Hyg 80: 609-614 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Reves, R. R., Johnson, P. C., Ericsson, C. D., DuPont, H. L. (1988). A Cost-effectiveness Comparison of the Use of Antimicrobial Agents for Treatment or Prophylaxis of Travelers' Diarrhea. Arch Intern Med 148: 2421-2427 [Abstract]  
• Johnson, P. C., Ericsson, C. D., DuPont, H. L., Morgan, D. R., Bitsura, J. A. M., Wood, L. V. (1986). Comparison of Loperamide With Bismuth Subsalicylate for the Treatment of Acute Travelers' Diarrhea. JAMA 255: 757-760 [Abstract]  
• DUPONT, H. L., ERICSSON, C. D., JOHNSON, P. C. (1985). Chemotherapy and Chemoprophylaxis of Travelers' Diarrhea. ANN INTERN MED 102: 260-261 [Abstract]