Treatment of Travelers' Diarrhea: Ciprofloxacin plus Loperamide Compared with Ciprofloxacin Alone

A Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trial

Abstract

Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of loperamide used in combination with ciprofloxacin or ciprofloxacin alone for the treatment of travelers' diarrhea.

Design: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Setting: United States Army hospital in Egypt.

Participants: United States military personnel with travelers' diarrhea (n = 104) during a military exercise in November 1989. Persons who were noncompliant, had bloody diarrhea, or had received antidiarrheal medications before entry into the study were excluded.

Interventions: All participants with travelers' diarrhea were treated with ciprofloxacin, 500 mg twice daily for 3 days. Fifty of these patients were randomly assigned to receive loperamide, a 4-mg first dose and 2 mg for every loose stool (as much as 16 mg/d), and 54 were randomly assigned to receive placebo.

Measurements: Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli was isolated from 57% of patients; Shigella and Salmonella, seen in 4% and 2% of patients, respectively, were not common.

Main Results: After 24 hours, the symptoms of 82% of patients in the ciprofloxacin and loperamide group compared with 67% in the ciprofloxacin and placebo group had improved or fully recovered (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.8 to 6.3; P = 0.08). After 48 hours, the symptoms of 90% of both groups had improved or fully recovered. The mean number of stools for those receiving loperamide was not much lower than those who did not receive loperamide after 24 hours (1.9 ± 0.2 [SE] compared with 2.6 ± 0.2) or 48 hours (3.1 ± 0.3 compared with 4.0 ± 0.3) of treatment (P = 0.19).

Conclusions: In a region where enterotoxigenic E. coli was the predominant cause of travelers' diarrhea, loperamide combined with ciprofloxacin was not better than treatment with ciprofloxacin alone. Loperamide appeared to have some benefit in the first 24 hours of treatment in patients infected with enterotoxigenic E. coli. Both regimens were safe.

Article and Author Information

  • From the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, DC; the U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit #3, Cairo, Egypt; and the Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangkok, Thailand. For current author addresses, see end of text.

  • The views of the authors do not purport to reflect the positions of the U.S. Department of the Army, the U.S. Department of the Navy, or the U.S. Department of Defense.

  • Requests for Reprints: David N. Taylor, MD, Enteric Infections Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, DC 20307-5100.

  • Current Author Addresses: Dr. Taylor: Enteric Infections Branch, Division of Communicable Diseases and Immunology, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, DC 20307-5100.

    Dr. Sanchez: Department of Field Studies, Division of Preventive Medicine, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, DC 20307-5100.

    Dr. Candler: Preventive Medicine Service, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, Panama, APO Miami, FL 34004-5000.

    LT. Thornton: Department of Bacteriology, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit #3, FPO NY 09527.

    Dr. McQueen: Department of Gastroenterology, Division of Medicine, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, DC 20307-5100.

    Dr. Echeverria: Department of Bacteriology, Armed Forces Research Institute of Medicine Sciences, APO San Francisco, CA 96346-5000.

| Table of Contents
Most Read Most Read
Most Commented Most Commented On
Annals in the News Annals in the News
Clinical Trials Clinical Trials
Comparative Effectiveness Comparative Effectiveness
Hospital Medicine Hospital Medicine
  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement