METHODS: After the extraction of the crude oil of the plant, they were tested against a Gentamycin (GM)-treated group of Swiss Albino mice for their nephroprotective action. Animals were divided into six (6) equal groups with five (5) animals in each group. These groups were: control group (0.5 mL normal saline via intraperitoneal -i.p), gentamycin group (gentamycin 100 mg/kg i.p), Silymarin + gentamycin group (Silymarin 50 mg/kg and gentamycin 100 mg/kg i.p), plant extract (AHcr1) and gentamycin group (AHcr1 250 mg/kg and gentamycin 100 mg/kg i.p), AHcr2 + gentamycin group (AHcr2; 500 mg/kg and gentamycin 100 mg/kg i.p) and the hexane oil fraction (AHO) + gentamycin (AHO 1 mL/kg and GM 100 mg/kg i.p). After completion of doses, animals were sacrificed for the collection of blood to further investigate biochemical changes and histopathological changes in kidney tissues.
RESULTS: Serum creatinine, urea, and blood urea nitrogen significantly increased (p < 0.001) in the gentamycin-treated group as compared to the control group. The elevated level of serum creatinine, urea, and blood urea nitrogen was decreased significantly (p < 0.001) in groups treated with AHcr and AHO compared to the gentamycin group. Similarly, the histopathological study of kidney tissues from the gentamycin group showed tubular necrosis, vacuolation, and fibrosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The effect of crude extract and hexane soluble fraction of AH caused a significant reversal of gentamycin-induced nephrotoxicity.
OBJECTIVES: On this basis, a study was conducted in a district hospital to study the therapy outcomes of antibiotic regimens used in pediatric community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) management and to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CE) between IV ampicillin versus combination therapy of IV ampicillin and IV gentamicin.
METHOD: A prospective, randomized, controlled, single blind study was conducted in a pediatric ward in a 80-bed district hospital. Pediatric patients diagnosed with CAP aged 2 months to 5 years old were randomly and equally divided into two treatment arms: ampicillin versus ampicillin plus gentamicin. The dose of IV ampicillin used in this study was 100 mg/kg/day divided every 6 h and 5 mg/kg of IV gentamicin as a single daily dose. Both clinical and economic evaluations were carried out to compare both treatment arms.
RESULTS: With the inclusion and exclusion criteria, only 40 patients diagnosed with CAP were included in the study. The results showed that the two treatment arms were significantly different (P < 0.05) in terms of duration of patients on ampicillin, number of days of hospitalization and time to switch to oral therapy. A significant difference was noted between the two treatment modalities in terms of effectiveness and cost (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Overall, the endpoint of this study showed that the total cost per patient of ampicillin-treated group is cheaper than the total cost with the combination therapy (ampicillin plus gentamicin) and reduced unnecessary exposure to adverse effects or toxicities. Besides that, addition of gentamicin in the treatment modalities will only increase the cost of treatment without introducing any changes in the treatment outcome.