Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of cefprozil, cefpodoxime proxetil, loracarbef, cefixime, and ceftibuten.
Ann Pharmacother. 1996 Mar; 30(3):258-68.AP

Abstract

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+Show Affiliations

College of Pharmacy, Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

8833562

Citation

Schatz, B S., et al. "Comparison of Cefprozil, Cefpodoxime Proxetil, Loracarbef, Cefixime, and Ceftibuten." The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, vol. 30, no. 3, 1996, pp. 258-68.
Schatz BS, Karavokiros KT, Taeubel MA, et al. Comparison of cefprozil, cefpodoxime proxetil, loracarbef, cefixime, and ceftibuten. Ann Pharmacother. 1996;30(3):258-68.
Schatz, B. S., Karavokiros, K. T., Taeubel, M. A., & Itokazu, G. S. (1996). Comparison of cefprozil, cefpodoxime proxetil, loracarbef, cefixime, and ceftibuten. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 30(3), 258-68.
Schatz BS, et al. Comparison of Cefprozil, Cefpodoxime Proxetil, Loracarbef, Cefixime, and Ceftibuten. Ann Pharmacother. 1996;30(3):258-68. PubMed PMID: 8833562.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of cefprozil, cefpodoxime proxetil, loracarbef, cefixime, and ceftibuten. AU - Schatz,B S, AU - Karavokiros,K T, AU - Taeubel,M A, AU - Itokazu,G S, PY - 1996/3/1/pubmed PY - 1996/3/1/medline PY - 1996/3/1/entrez SP - 258 EP - 68 JF - The Annals of pharmacotherapy JO - Ann Pharmacother VL - 30 IS - 3 N2 - 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. SN - 1060-0280 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/8833562/Comparison_of_cefprozil_cefpodoxime_proxetil_loracarbef_cefixime_and_ceftibuten_ L2 - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/106002809603000310?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -