Objective: Present Randomized controlled trial study was undertaken to evaluate the difference in outcome of patients treated with oral co-amoxyclav, intravenous co-amoxyclav, followed by oral cephalosporins   for lower respiratory tract infection.

Materials and Methods: A total of 234 patients admitted for lower respiratory tract infection were included in the study. All the patients were randomized in three study Groups. Group A included 75 patients, Group B contains 75 patients and Group C contains 68 patients, 16 patients were excluded from the study. Group A patients received co- amoxyclav 500mg/125mg orally three times a day for seven days, Group B patients received 1000mg/200mg   intravenously two times a day for three days followed by orally 500mg/125mg three times a day for two days and Group C received cephalosporins 1000mg intravenously two times a day for three days followed by 500 mg orally two times a day for two days. Written consent was taken from all the patients and all the data regarding age, occupation, clinical illness, past history of treatment were noted. 

Results: There were no significant differences between the all the groups in clinical outcome or mortality. However, patients randomized to oral co-amoxyclav had a significantly shorter hospital stay than the two groups given intravenous antibiotics.

Conclusion: Oral antibiotics in lower respiratory tract infection are at least as efficacious as intravenous therapy. Oral antibiotics were cheaper, easier to administer, and may lead to earlier discharge from hospital.

Kewwords: Community acquired, Antibiotics, co- Amoxyclav, Cephalosporins. Lower respiratory tract infection.

1. Principles of Internal medicine by Harrisons 17 edition.
2. Text book of Pharmacology K.D.Triphati.
3. Text book of Microbiology Panikar
4. Malek M Audit of IV antibiotic administration. Pharmaceutical Journal 1990;244:793-6 .Google Scholar
5. Hospital formularies: need for continuous intervention.BMJ1990;300:38-40.
6. Zalin AM Cannulas and junior doctors.BMJ1989; 229: 1279. Google Scholar
7. Bennett JV. Antibiotic usage in seven community hospitals.JAMA1970;213: 264–7
8. Visconti JA The rational use and irrational use of systemic antimicrobial drugs.Am J Hosp Pharm1972;29:828–34. PubMed Web of Science
9. Google ScholarOsterhout S Antibiotic use at Duke University Medical Centre .JAMA1977;237:2819–33. CrossRef PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
10. A study of antimicrobial misuse in a university hospital. Am J Med Sci1978;275:271–8.
11. Craig WA Use of antibiotics: a brief exposition of the problem and some tentative solutions. Ann Intern Med1973;79:555–60.
12. Smith MD, et al Antimicrobial misuse in patients with positive blood cultures. Am J Med1989;87:253–9.
13. Comparison of ceftriaxone with cefotaxime in serious chest infections. Chest1989;96:1292–7.Cross Ref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar

Dr Gaurav Tiwari

Tutor, Department of Pharmacology, Sri Krishna Medical College, Muzaffarpur, India