Literature DB >> 9589816

Cefdinir versus cephalexin for the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections. The Cefdinir Adult Skin Infection Study Group.

K J Tack1, T W Littlejohn, G Mailloux, M M Wolf, C H Keyserling.   

Abstract

Because of increasing resistance to older antimicrobial agents, newer drugs need to be evaluated for the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections (SSSIs). This double-masked, randomized, comparative, multicenter study enrolled patients aged 13 years or older with SSSIs to receive either cefdinir 300 mg BID or cephalexin 500 mg QID for 10 days. Nine hundred fifty-two patients (474 in the cefdinir group and 478 in the cephalexin group) took part, primarily white males between 18 and 65 years of age. There were two follow-up visits, with efficacy determined at the test-of-cure visit, 7 to 16 days posttherapy. Many patients were not microbiologically assessable, primarily because of negative cultures at study admission. Patients who required surgical intervention (e.g., incision and drainage) at the site of infection more than 24 hours after the initiation of drug therapy were defined as treatment failures. Significantly more isolated pathogens were resistant to cephalexin than to cefdinir. In the 178 efficacy-assessable cefdinir-treated patients, the rate of pathogen eradication was 93% (200/215), and the rate of successful clinical response was 88% (157/178), compared with 89% (221/247) and 87% (177/204), respectively, in the 204 efficacy-assessable cephalexin-treated patients. Using confidence-interval analysis, the microbiologic and clinical response rates of the cefdinir-treated patients were statistically equivalent to those of the cephalexin-treated patients. At the follow-up visits, patients were questioned about any adverse events occurring since their previous visit. Any untoward symptom occurring during or within 2 days after completion of drug treatment was considered an adverse reaction if the investigator judged it to be definitely, probably, or possibly related to the study drug. One hundred twenty-three (26%) cefdinir-treated patients and 77 (16%) cephalexin-treated patients experienced at least one adverse reaction, a statistically significant difference. Study drug was discontinued for adverse reactions in 20 (4%) cefdinir-treated patients and 13 (3%) cephalexin-treated patients; in the two groups, 10 and 7 patients, respectively, were discontinued for diarrhea. Cefdinir taken BID was as effective as cephalexin taken QID in the treatment of mild-to-moderate SSSIs and was well tolerated by most patients. The increased antibacterial activity of cefdinir must be balanced against the higher rate of diarrhea seen in patients treated with this drug.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9589816     DOI: 10.1016/s0149-2918(98)80088-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Ther        ISSN: 0149-2918            Impact factor:   3.393


  8 in total

1.  Optimal management of uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections of the lower extremity.

Authors:  Warren S Joseph
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.725

Review 2.  Interventions for impetigo.

Authors:  Sander Koning; Renske van der Sande; Arianne P Verhagen; Lisette W A van Suijlekom-Smit; Andrew D Morris; Christopher C Butler; Marjolein Berger; Johannes C van der Wouden
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-01-18

Review 3.  The impact of antibiotics on clinical response over time in uncomplicated cellulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Krishan Yadav; Natalia Krzyzaniak; Charlotte Alexander; Anna Mae Scott; Justin Clark; Paul Glasziou; Gerben Keijzers
Journal:  Infection       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 7.455

Review 4.  Cellulitis and erysipelas.

Authors:  Andrew D Morris
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2008-01-02

Review 5.  Cefdinir: a review of its use in the management of mild-to-moderate bacterial infections.

Authors:  Caroline M Perry; Lesley J Scott
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 9.546

6.  Is coverage of S. aureus necessary in cellulitis/erysipelas? A literature review.

Authors:  Stamatis Karakonstantis
Journal:  Infection       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 3.553

Review 7.  Interventions for cellulitis and erysipelas.

Authors:  Sally A Kilburn; Peter Featherstone; Bernie Higgins; Richard Brindle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-06-16

8.  A developed and validated stability-indicating reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatographic method for determination of cefdinir in the presence of its degradation products as per International Conference on Harmonization guidelines.

Authors:  Purnima Hamrapurkar; Priti Patil; Mitesh Phale; Mital Gandhi; Sandeep Pawar
Journal:  Pharm Methods       Date:  2011-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.