OBJECTIVE: To discuss the pharmacokinetics, spectrum of activity, clinical trials, and adverse effects of cefprozil, cefpodoxime proxetil, loracarbef, cefixime, and ceftibuten, an investigational cephalosporin. DATA SOURCES: Literature was identified by a MEDLINE search from 1986 to January 1995. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled studies were selected for evaluation; however, uncontrolled studies were included when data were limited for indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were evaluated with respect to in vitro activity, study design, clinical and microbiologic outcomes, and adverse drug reactions. DATA SYNTHESIS: Cefprozil, cefpodoxime proxetil, loracarbef, cefixime, and cefributen are active in vitro against organisms frequently involved in community-acquired infections such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, beta-lactamase-positive or -negative Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Except for cefixime and ceflibuten, they all are active against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Even though there were problems in study design (discussed within the text), clinical data demonstrate that these new oral beta-lactam compounds are as efficacious as conventional therapies for a variety of community-acquired infections. CONCLUSIONS: Cefprozil, cefpodoxime, cefixime, loracarbef, and ceftibuten demonstrate in vitro activity against the major organisms that cause community-acquired infections. Clinical trials confirm that these agents are as effective as traditional therapies for the management of acute otitis media, pharyngitis/tonsillitis, sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and skin and skin-structure infections. In addition, cefixime and cefpodoxime are effective therapies for uncomplicated gonococcal infections. Selection of a specific agent will be influenced by susceptibility data and safety, as well as issues of compliance and cost.
OBJECTIVE: To discuss the pharmacokinetics, spectrum of activity, clinical trials, and adverse effects of cefprozil, cefpodoxime proxetil, loracarbef, cefixime, and ceftibuten, an investigational cephalosporin. DATA SOURCES: Literature was identified by a MEDLINE search from 1986 to January 1995. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled studies were selected for evaluation; however, uncontrolled studies were included when data were limited for indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were evaluated with respect to in vitro activity, study design, clinical and microbiologic outcomes, and adverse drug reactions. DATA SYNTHESIS: Cefprozil, cefpodoxime proxetil, loracarbef, cefixime, and cefributen are active in vitro against organisms frequently involved in community-acquired infections such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, beta-lactamase-positive or -negative Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Except for cefixime and ceflibuten, they all are active against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Even though there were problems in study design (discussed within the text), clinical data demonstrate that these new oral beta-lactam compounds are as efficacious as conventional therapies for a variety of community-acquired infections. CONCLUSIONS:Cefprozil, cefpodoxime, cefixime, loracarbef, and ceftibuten demonstrate in vitro activity against the major organisms that cause community-acquired infections. Clinical trials confirm that these agents are as effective as traditional therapies for the management of acute otitis media, pharyngitis/tonsillitis, sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and skin and skin-structure infections. In addition, cefixime and cefpodoxime are effective therapies for uncomplicated gonococcal infections. Selection of a specific agent will be influenced by susceptibility data and safety, as well as issues of compliance and cost.
Authors: G A Tarshis; B M Miskin; T M Jones; J Champlin; K J Wingert; J D Breen; M J Brown Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Shivani N Mehta; Chrysovalantis Stafylis; David M Tellalian; Pamela L Burian; Cliff M Okada; Carl E Millner; Christopher M Mejia; Jeffrey D Klausner Journal: Trials Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 2.279