Comparison of cefprozil, cefpodoxime proxetil, loracarbef, cefixime, and ceftibuten

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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. L. Furman, K. R. Crews, C. Billups, J. Wu, A. J. Gajjar, N. C. Daw, C. C. Patrick, C. Rodriguez-Galindo, C. F. Stewart, J. S. Dome, et al. Cefixime Allows Greater Dose Escalation of Oral Irinotecan: A Phase I Study in Pediatric Patients With Refractory Solid Tumors J. Clin. Oncol., February 1, 2006; 24(4): 563 - 570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. A. Tarshis, B. M. Miskin, T. M. Jones, J. Champlin, K. J. Wingert, J. D. Breen, and M. J. Brown Once-Daily Oral Gatifloxacin versus Oral Levofloxacin in Treatment of Uncomplicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: Double-Blind, Multicenter, Randomized Study Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., August 1, 2001; 45(8): 2358 - 2362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. L. Block Strategies for Dealing With Amoxicillin Failure in Acute Otitis Media Arch Fam Med, January 1, 1999; 8(1): 68 - 78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]