Literature DB >> 1800377

Antibacterial activity of cefpodoxime in comparison with cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet, ceftibuten, loracarbef, cefprozil, BAY 3522, cefuroxime, cefaclor and cefadroxil.

A Bauernfeind1, R Jungwirth.   

Abstract

The new oral cephalosporins cefpodoxime, cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet and ceftibuten demonstrate enhanced activity against Enterobacteriaceae susceptible to the established compounds as well (e.g. cefuroxime, cefaclor, cefadroxil). In addition, cefpodoxime, cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet and ceftibuten include in their spectrum species hitherto resistant to oral cephalosporins (Proteus vulgaris, Providencia spp., Yersinia enterocolitica). Besides, the majority of these compounds demonstrate relevant activity (MIC50 equal to or below 2 mg/l) against Enterobacter spp., Citrobacter freundii, Serratia spp. and Morganella morganii. Ceftibuten is the most potent oral cephalosporin against most of the Enterobacteriaceae. Non-fermentative bacilli (Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp.) remain completely resistant to oral cephalosporins (except some Acinetobacter species against cefdinir and Pseudomonas cepacia against ceftibuten). Antistaphylococcal activity for oral cephalosporins is highest for cefdinir followed by BAY 3522, cefprozil, cefuroxime and cefpodoxime. Loracarbef, cefaclor and cefadroxil are about equally active, while the other compounds are only weakly active (cefixime) or inactive (cefetamet, ceftibuten). Enterococci are insensitive to new generation oral cephalosporins as they have been to established compounds. The most active oral cephalosporins against hemolytic streptococci are cefdinir and cefprozil. Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus milleri and Streptococcus mitior are most susceptible to cefpodoxime, cefdinir, cefuroxime and BAY 3522. Penicillin resistant pneumococci have to be regarded as resistant to all oral cephalosporins. Fastidious pathogens like Haemophilus spp., Moraxella catarrhalis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are more susceptible to cefpodoxime, cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet and ceftibuten than to the other oral cephalosporins. The activity of oral cephalosporins is only weak against Listeria spp., Helicobacter pylori and anaerobic pathogens (except BAY 3522). Bordetella pertussis remains resistant to all absorbable cephalosporins. Progress in antibacterial activity of oral cephalosporins was mainly achieved by cefpodoxime, cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet and ceftibuten against Enterobacteriaceae and the fastidious pathogens and against staphylococci and the nonenterococcal streptococci by cefdinir, BAY 3522, cefprozil and cefpodoxime.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1800377     DOI: 10.1007/BF01645369

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infection        ISSN: 0300-8126            Impact factor:   3.553


  8 in total

1.  Development of "oligotyping" for characterization and molecular epidemiology of TEM beta-lactamases in members of the family Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  C Mabilat; P Courvalin
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  In vitro activity and stability against novel beta-lactamases of investigational beta-lactams (cefepime, cefpirome, flomoxef, SCE2787 and piperacillin plus tazobactam) in comparison with established compounds (cefotaxime, latamoxef and piperacillin).

Authors:  A Bauernfeind; S Schweighart; E Eberlein; R Jungwirth
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.553

3.  Selection of antibiotics for treatment and prophylaxis of staphylococcal infections in cystic fibrosis patients.

Authors:  A Bauernfeind; B Przyklenk; C Matthias; R Jungwirth; R M Bertele; K Harms
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1990 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.553

4.  [Bacteriological in vitro investigations with cefaclor. Correlation of inhibition zone diameter and minimal inhibitory concentration (author's transl)].

Authors:  H Grimm
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1979       Impact factor: 3.553

5.  Comparative antimicrobial spectrum and activity of ceftibuten against clinical isolates from West Germany.

Authors:  A Bauernfeind
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1991 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.803

6.  In vitro susceptibilities of Bordetella pertussis and Bordetella parapertussis to six new oral cephalosporins.

Authors:  J E Hoppe; J Müller
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 5.191

7.  Cefaclor: in vitro spectrum of activity and beta-lactamase stability.

Authors:  H C Neu; K P Fu
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1978-04       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  In vitro activity of cefetamet (Ro 15-8074).

Authors:  H Mittermayer
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 3.267

  8 in total
  13 in total

1.  In vitro activity of RU 29246, the active compound of the cephalosporin prodrug ester HR 916.

Authors:  G Riess; J Andrews; D Thornber; R Wise
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 2.  Clinical and economic considerations in the use of third-generation oral cephalosporins.

Authors:  S T Chambers; D R Murdoch; M J Pearce
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  State of art in antibacterial susceptibility of Bordetella pertussis and antibiotic treatment of pertussis.

Authors:  J E Hoppe
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.553

4.  Comparison of ceftibuten vs. amoxicillin/clavulanic acid as antibiotic prophylaxis in cholecystectomy and/or biliary tract surgery.

Authors:  H Orozco; J Sifuentes-Osornio; C Chan; H Medina-Franco; F Vargas-Vorackova; E Prado; J Arch
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2000 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  Cefetamet pivoxil. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use.

Authors:  H M Bryson; R N Brogden
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 6.  Loracarbef. A review of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy.

Authors:  R N Brogden; D McTavish
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 7.  Cefprozil. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic potential.

Authors:  L R Wiseman; P Benfield
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 8.  Clinical pharmacokinetics of newer cephalosporins.

Authors:  M E Klepser; M N Marangos; K B Patel; D P Nicolau; R Quintiliani; C H Nightingale
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 9.  Ceftibuten pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Focus on paediatric use.

Authors:  G L Kearns; R A Young
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 6.447

10.  In vitro activity of cefpodoxime in comparison with other oral beta-lactam antibiotics.

Authors:  F H Kayser
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1994 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.553

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.