Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.


Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login


Bacterial infections

IV antibiotics no more effective than oral for eradicating infection in cystic fibrosis patients, study suggests

In the TORPEDO-CF trial, 44% of patients assigned to intravenous therapy achieved infection eradication at three months and remained free of infection at 15 months, compared with 52% of those assigned to oral therapy.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Source: Science Photo Library

Eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection at three months and remaining infection free at 15 months was the primary endpoint of the study

Intravenous (IV) antibiotics are not superior to oral antibiotics for eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) in cystic fibrosis patients, according to a randomised controlled trial in Lancet Respiratory Medicine (8 October 2020)[1].

Researchers from the TORPEDO-CF study group compared 14 days of IV ceftazidime and tobramycin with 12 weeks of oral ciprofloxacin treatment among 286 patients with a P. aeruginosa infection from 72 cystic fibrosis centres; of which 70 were in the UK.

Patients assigned to IV therapy were less likely to achieve the primary outcome of infection eradication at 3 months and remaining free of infection at 15 months, although the difference between the groups was not found to be statistically significant.

Of 125 participants in the IV group, 55 (44%) achieved the primary outcome, compared with 68 (52%) of 130 participants in the oral group (relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.65–1.09; P=0.18).

An economic analysis showed a cost saving of £5,939 per patient with the use of oral versus IV treatment, despite more patients assigned to the oral treatment group being admitted to hospital during follow-up.

“If the findings of this trial are implemented in routine clinical practice, most patients will receive oral eradication treatment as an outpatient and many hospital admissions will be avoided, which in turn will reduce both treatment burden and health-care costs,” the researchers concluded.

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2020.20208564

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Jobs you might like

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.