Skip to main content
PMC home page
British Medical Journal logoLink to British Medical Journal
. 1968 Aug 3;3(5613):277–280. doi: 10.1136/bmj.3.5613.277

Controlled Comparison of Tetracycline and Furazolidone in Cholera*

N F Pierce, J G Banwell, R C Mitra, G J Caranasos, R I Keimowitz, J Thomas, A Mondal
PMCID: PMC1986263  PMID: 4873660

Abstract

A controlled comparison of furazolidone and tetracycline in the treatment of cholera indicates that, in either dosage used, furazolidone reduced total stool volume by 50% and duration of diarrhoea by 40%. These results are comparable to those achieved with tetracycline, which was given in presently recommended dosage. Both furazolidone and tetracycline significantly reduced the rate of stool output within 18 to 24 hours of starting antibiotic treatment. Furazolidone was significantly less effective than tetracycline in rapidly and consistently terminating vibrio excretion. One convalescent carrier of cholera vibrios was identified among control patients; none was identified among patients treated with either tetracycline or furazolidone. All Vibrio cholerae strains tested were sensitive to tetracycline and furazolidone, but larger concentrations of the latter were required to achieve inhibition of growth. It is concluded that tetracycline remains the antibiotic of choice in cholera but that furazolidone would be a useful adjunct to cholera therapy when tetracycline is unobtainable or if strains of V. cholerae with clinically significant resistance to tetracycline should be encountered.

Full text

PDF
277

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. BARUA D., MUKHERJEE A. C. DIRECT BACTERIAL HAEMAGGLUTINATION TEST FOR DIFFERENTIATING EL TOR VIBRIOS FROM V. CHOLERAE. Bull Calcutta Sch Trop Med. 1963 Jul;11:85–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chaudhuri R. N., Neogy K. N., Sanyal S. N., Gupta R. K., Manji P. Furazolidone in the treatment of cholera. Lancet. 1968 Feb 17;1(7538):332–333. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(68)90796-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. GREENOUGH W. B., 3rd, GORDON R. S., Jr, ROSENBERG I. S., DAVIES B. I., BENENSON A. S. TETRACYCLINE IN THE TREATMENT OF CHOLERA. Lancet. 1964 Feb 15;1(7329):355–357. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(64)92099-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gangarosa E. J., Saghari H., Emile J., Siadat H. Detection of Vibrio cholerae biotype El Tor by purging. Bull World Health Organ. 1966;34(3):363–369. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. HAN G. K., KHIE T. S. A new method for the differentiation of Vibrio comma and Vibrio El Tor. Am J Hyg. 1963 Mar;77:184–186. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a120308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lewis G., Sanyal S. Tetracycline sensitivity of Vibrio cholerae in Calcutta. Bull Calcutta Sch Trop Med. 1965 Apr;13(2):40–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lindenbaum J., Greenough W. B., Islam M. R. Antibiotic therapy of cholera. Bull World Health Organ. 1967;36(6):871–883. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Roberts H. J. Amphetamine. Lancet. 1965 Oct 30;2(7418):909–910. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(65)92549-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Wallace C. K., Anderson P. N., Lewis G. W., Segre G. V., Pierce N. F., Brown T. C., Sanyal S. N., Waldman R. H. Probable gallbladder infection in convalescent cholera patients. Lancet. 1967 Apr 22;1(7495):865–868. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(67)91427-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES