512 mg/L). The other 14 isolates were nalidixic acid susceptible and fully susceptible to ciprofloxacin (MIC range 0.015–0.03 mg/L). Five of the 7 cases were treated initially with oral ciprofloxacin. One patient remained febrile on IV ciprofloxacin until cefotaxime was added, with fever recurrence when cefotaxime was discontinued. Two continued on oral or IV ciprofloxacin alone but had prolonged fevers of 9–10 days duration, one was switched to IV beta-lactam therapy after remaining febrile for 3 days on oral/IV ciprofloxacin and one was treated successfully with oral ciprofloxacin. Four of the 5 required hospitalization. Our cases provide further evidence that reduced fluoroquinolone susceptibility of S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi is clinically significant. Laboratories should test extra-intestinal Salmonella spp. for reduced fluoroquinolone susceptibility."/> 512 mg/L). The other 14 isolates were nalidixic acid susceptible and fully susceptible to ciprofloxacin (MIC range 0.015–0.03 mg/L). Five of the 7 cases were treated initially with oral ciprofloxacin. One patient remained febrile on IV ciprofloxacin until cefotaxime was added, with fever recurrence when cefotaxime was discontinued. Two continued on oral or IV ciprofloxacin alone but had prolonged fevers of 9–10 days duration, one was switched to IV beta-lactam therapy after remaining febrile for 3 days on oral/IV ciprofloxacin and one was treated successfully with oral ciprofloxacin. Four of the 5 required hospitalization. Our cases provide further evidence that reduced fluoroquinolone susceptibility of S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi is clinically significant. Laboratories should test extra-intestinal Salmonella spp. for reduced fluoroquinolone susceptibility."/>
Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Peer Review Reports for: Suboptimal clinical response to ciprofloxacin in patients with enteric fever due to Salmonella spp. with reduced fluoroquinolone susceptibility: a case series

Back to article

Pre-publication versions of this article are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
22 Apr 2004 Submitted Original manuscript
7 May 2004 Author responded Author comments - Robert Slinger
Resubmission - Version 2
7 May 2004 Submitted Manuscript version 2
16 Jun 2004 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Shyamapada Mandal
16 Jul 2004 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Antti Juhani Hakanen
6 Aug 2004 Author responded Author comments - Robert Slinger
Resubmission - Version 3
6 Aug 2004 Submitted Manuscript version 3
19 Aug 2004 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Shyamapada Mandal
7 Sep 2004 Author responded Author comments - Robert Slinger
Resubmission - Version 4
7 Sep 2004 Submitted Manuscript version 4
10 Sep 2004 Author responded Author comments - Robert Slinger
Resubmission - Version 5
10 Sep 2004 Submitted Manuscript version 5
Publishing
20 Sep 2004 Editorially accepted
20 Sep 2004 Article published 10.1186/1471-2334-4-36

How does Open Peer Review work?

Open peer review is a system where authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article. Pre-publication versions of the article are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

You can find further information about the peer review system here.

Advertisement