Loracarbef versus penicillin VK in the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis and tonsillitis in an adult population

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. This is an update of a review first published in 2010, and updated in 2013, 2016, and 2021.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing clinical relapse (i.e. recurrence of symptoms after initial resolution); and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2023, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Elsevier, and Web of Science (Clarivate) up to 19 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics, and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications and/or adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes. We reported the intention-to-treat analysis, and also performed an analysis of evaluable participants to explore the robustness of the intention-to-treat results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials reported in 18 publications (5839 randomised participants): six trials compared penicillin with cephalosporins; six compared penicillin with macrolides; three compared penicillin with carbacephem; one compared penicillin with sulphonamides; one compared clindamycin with ampicillin; and one compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All participants had confirmed acute GABHS tonsillopharyngitis, and ages ranged from one month to 80 years. Nine trials included only, or predominantly, children. Most trials were conducted in an outpatient setting. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both, heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals. Cephalosporins versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference in symptom resolution (at 2 to 15 days) for cephalosporins versus penicillin (odds ratio (OR) for absence of symptom resolution 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12; 5 trials, 2018 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results of the sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants differed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 5 trials, 1660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Based on an analysis of evaluable participants, we are uncertain if clinical relapse may be lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; 4 trials, 1386 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence showed no difference in reported adverse events. Macrolides versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference between macrolides and penicillin for resolution of symptoms (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; 6 trials, 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants resulted in an OR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; 6 trials, 1159 participants). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be different (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.03; 6 trials, 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Children treated with macrolides seemed to experience more adverse events than those treated with penicillin (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15; 1 trial, 489 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the test for subgroup differences between children and adults was not significant. Azithromycin versus amoxicillin Based on one unpublished trial in children, we are uncertain if resolution of symptoms is better with azithromycin in a single dose versus amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; 1 trial, 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis for per-protocol analysis resulted in an OR of 0.29 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 trial, 482 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain if there was a difference in relapse between groups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; 1 trial, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were more common with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; 1 trial, 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Carbacephem versus penicillin There is low-certainty evidence that compared with penicillin, carbacephem may provide better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14.3; 3 trials, 795 participants). Studies did not report on long-term complications, so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better at preventing serious but rare complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if there are clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Low-certainty evidence in children suggests that carbacephem may be more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the other comparisons in this review. Data on complications were too scarce to draw conclusions. Antibiotics have a limited effect in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis and the results do not demonstrate that other antibiotics are more effective than penicillin. In the context of antimicrobial stewardship, penicillin can be used if treatment with an antibiotic is indicated. All studies were conducted in high-income countries with a low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is a need for trials in low-income countries and disadvantaged populations, where the risk of complications remains high.

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. This is an update of a review first published in 2010, and updated in 2013, 2016, and 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing clinical relapse (i.e. recurrence of symptoms after initial resolution); and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 3 September 2020: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), Embase Elsevier (from 1974), and Web of Science Thomson Reuters (from 2010). We also searched clinical trial registers on 3 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics, and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications and/or adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes. We have reported the intention-to-treat analysis, and also performed an analysis of evaluable participants to explore the robustness of the intention-to-treat results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials reported in 18 publications (5839 randomised participants): six trials compared penicillin with cephalosporins; six compared penicillin with macrolides; three compared penicillin with carbacephem; one compared penicillin with sulphonamides; one compared clindamycin with ampicillin; and one compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All participants had confirmed acute GABHS tonsillopharyngitis, and ages ranged from one month to 80 years. Nine trials included only, or predominantly, children. Most trials were conducted in an outpatient setting. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both; heterogeneity; and wide confidence intervals. Cephalosporins versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference in symptom resolution (at 2 to 15 days) for cephalosporins versus penicillin (odds ratio (OR) for absence of symptom resolution 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12; 5 trials; 2018 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results of the sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants differed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 5 trials; 1660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; 4 trials; 1386 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence showed no difference in reported adverse events. Macrolides versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference between macrolides and penicillin for resolution of symptoms (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; 6 trials; 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants resulted in an OR of 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; 6 trials; 1159 participants). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be different (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.03; 6 trials; 802 participants; low-certainty evidence).  Azithromycin versus amoxicillin Based on one unpublished trial in children, we are uncertain if resolution of symptoms is better with azithromycin in a single dose versus amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis for per-protocol analysis resulted in an OR of 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 trial; 482 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain if there was a difference in relapse between groups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; 1 trial; 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were more common with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Carbacephem versus penicillin There is low-certainty evidence that compared with penicillin, carbacephem may provide better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14.3; 3 trials; 795 participants). Studies did not report on long-term complications, so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better in preventing serious but rare complications.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if there are clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Low-certainty evidence in children suggests that carbacephem may be more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the other comparisons in this review. Data on complications were too scarce to draw conclusions. These results do not demonstrate that other antibiotics are more effective than penicillin in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries with a low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is a need for trials in low-income countries and Aboriginal communities, where the risk of complications remains high.

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although effectiveness increases in participants with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence on the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing relapse; and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 3, 2016), Embase Elsevier (1974 to March 2016), and Web of Science Thomson Reuters (2010 to March 2016). We also searched clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications or adverse events, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion, and extracted data using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias of included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and used the GRADE tool to assess the overall quality of evidence for the outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials (5839 randomised participants); seven compared penicillin with cephalosporins, six compared penicillin with macrolides, three compared penicillin with carbacephem, one trial compared penicillin with sulphonamides, one trial compared clindamycin with ampicillin, and one trial compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All included trials reported clinical outcomes. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. The overall quality of the evidence assessed using the GRADE tool was low for the outcome 'resolution of symptoms' in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and very low for the outcomes 'resolution of symptoms' of evaluable participants and for adverse events. We downgraded the quality of evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both, heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals (CIs).There was a difference in symptom resolution in favour of cephalosporins compared with penicillin (evaluable patients analysis odds ratio (OR) for absence of resolution of symptoms 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 20, N = 5, n = 1660; very low quality evidence). However, this was not statistically significant in the ITT analysis (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12; N = 5, n = 2018; low quality evidence). Clinical relapse was lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; NNTB 50, N = 4, n = 1386; low quality evidence), but this was found only in adults (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; NNTB 33, N = 2, n = 770). There were no differences between macrolides and penicillin for any of the outcomes. One unpublished trial in children found a better cure rate for azithromycin in a single dose compared to amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; NNTB 18, N = 1, n = 482), but there was no difference between the groups in ITT analysis (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; N = 1, n = 673) or at long-term follow-up (evaluable patients analysis OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; N = 1, n = 422). Children experienced more adverse events with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; N = 1, n = 673). Compared with penicillin carbacephem showed better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children combined (ITT analysis OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14, N = 3, n = 795), and in the subgroup analysis of children (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99; NNTB 8, N = 1, n = 233), but not in the subgroup analysis of adults (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.22, N = 2, n = 562). Children experienced more adverse events with macrolides compared with penicillin (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15; N = 1, n = 489). Studies did not report on long-term complications so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better in preventing serious but rare complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were no clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Limited evidence in adults suggests cephalosporins are more effective than penicillin for relapse, but the NNTB is high. Limited evidence in children suggests carbacephem is more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. Data on complications are too scarce to draw conclusions. Based on these results and considering the low cost and absence of resistance, penicillin can still be regarded as a first choice treatment for both adults and children. All studies were in high-income countries with low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is need for trials in low-income countries and Aboriginal communities where risk of complications remains high.

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although effectiveness increases in participants with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence on the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing relapse; and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL 2012, Issue 10, MEDLINE (1966 to October week 2, 2012), EMBASE (1974 to October 2012) and Web of Science (2010 to October 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, complications, adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials (5352 participants) were included; 16 compared with penicillin (six with cephalosporins, six with macrolides, three with carbacephem and one with sulfonamides), one trial compared clindamycin and ampicillin. Randomisation reporting, allocation concealment and blinding were poor.There was no difference in symptom resolution between cephalosporins and penicillin (intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; N = 5; n = 2018; odds ratio for absence of resolution of symptoms (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12). Clinical relapse was lower with cephalosporins (N = 4; n = 1386; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99; overall number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50), but found only in adults (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; NNTB 33). There were no differences between macrolides and penicillin. Carbacephem showed better symptom resolution post-treatment (N = 3; n = 795; OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14), but only in children (N = 2; n = 233; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99; NNTB 8.3). Children experienced more adverse events with macrolides (N = 1, n = 489; OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to show clinically meaningful differences between antibiotics for GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Limited evidence in adults suggests cephalosporins are more effective than penicillin for relapse, but the NNTB is high. Limited evidence in children suggests carbacephem is more effective for symptom resolution. Data on complications are too scarce to draw conclusions. Based on these results and considering the low cost and absence of resistance, penicillin can still be recommended as first choice.

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although effectiveness increases in participants with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics on clinical outcomes, relapse, complications and adverse events in GABHS tonsillopharyngitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2010, Issue 3) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to July Week 4, 2010) and EMBASE (1974 to August 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, complications, adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials (5352 participants) were included; 16 compared with penicillin (six with cephalosporins, six with macrolides, three with carbacephem and one with sulfonamides), one trial compared clindamycin and ampicillin. Randomisation reporting, allocation concealment and blinding were poor.There was no difference in symptom resolution between cephalosporins and penicillin (intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; N = 5; n = 2018; odds ratio for absence of resolution of symptoms (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12). Clinical relapse was lower with cephalosporins (N = 4; n = 1386; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99); overall number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50), but found only in adults (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; NNTB 33). There were no differences between macrolides and penicillin. Carbacephem showed better symptom resolution post-treatment (N = 3; n = 795; OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14), but only in children (N = 2; n = 233; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99; NNTB 8.3). Children experienced more adverse events with macrolides (N = 1, n = 489; OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient for clinically meaningful differences between antibiotics for GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Limited evidence in adults suggests cephalosporins are more effective than penicillin for relapse, but the NNTB is high. Limited evidence in children suggests carbacephem is more effective for symptom resolution. Data on complications are too scarce to draw conclusions. Based on these results and considering the low cost and absence of resistance, penicillin can still be recommended as first choice.

Oral cephalosporins: current perspectives

Oral cephalosporins had been, for years, a small group of compounds belonging to the first or second-generation cephalosporins, with a limited antimicrobial spectrum. New oral first-generation cephalosporins include cefprozil and loracarbef, similar to cefadroxil and cefaclor, respectively, with activity similar to cefaclor but with pharmacokinetic improvements. Second-generation oral cephalosporins are esters of already available cephalosporins, and third-generation oral cephalosporins include a number of drugs whose activity is similar to available parenteral drugs, showing pharmacokinetic advantages and, some of them, better resistance to hydrolysis mediated by extended wide-spectrum beta-lactamases. They may be a good alternative against mild to moderate ENT infections, UTIs, STDs, lower respiratory tract and skin and soft tissue infections, mainly in the outpatient setting.

Review article: prevalence and epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in Japan

The prevalence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in Asian populations is reported to be lower than that in Western populations. However, recent epidemiological studies suggest that the incidence of the disease is increasing, especially in Japan. Endoscopic studies show that the overall prevalence of reflux oesophagitis among the adult population in Japan is in the region of 14-16%. This is similar to the figure reported in Western countries. The increasing prevalence in Japan may be due to a number of factors including increasing awareness of the condition and improved diagnostic techniques. The majority of the diagnosed cases in Japan are mild and these account for the increase in prevalence of the condition. In contrast to the West, where the condition is more prevalent in male members of the population, there is a high incidence of GERD in elderly females in Japan. The increased incidence of kyphosis and osteoporosis in this population may lead to the development of hiatus hernia, a condition known to exacerbate the development of reflux disease. Furthermore, Japanese patients with endoscopically diagnosed GERD appear to be less likely to complain of typical reflux symptoms, such as heartburn and acid reflux than their Western counterparts. In view of the known relationship between asymptomatic GERD and the development of oesophageal cancers there is a strong case for increased vigilance in the detection of GERD in the Japanese population.

Penicillin failure in streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis: causes and remedies

Penicillin administered for 10 days has been the treatment of choice for group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis since the 1950s. The bacteriologic failure rate of 10 days of penicillin therapy ranged from approximately 2 to 10% until the early 1970s. Beginning in the late 1970s bacteriologic and clinical failure rates with penicillin therapy began to increase steadily over time and are now reported to be approximately 30%. The primary cause of penicillin treatment failure in streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis may be lack of compliance with the 10-day therapeutic regimen. Other causes of penicillin treatment failure include reexposure to Streptococcus-infected family members or peers; copathogenicity, in which bacteria susceptible to a class of drugs are protected by other, colocalized bacterial strains that lack the same susceptibility; antibiotic-associated eradication of normal protective pharyngeal flora; and penicillin tolerance, whereby streptococcal bacteria repeatedly or continuously exposed to sublethal concentrations of antibiotic become increasingly resistant to eradication. Although 10 days of penicillin therapy is effective in the management of tonsillopharyngitis for many patients, multiple factors may, singly or together, cause treatment failure. A number of antibiotics, particularly the cephalosporins, have been demonstrated to be superior to penicillin at eradicating group A beta-hemolytic Streptococcus, and several are effective when administered for 4 to 5 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Ten days of penicillin therapy may not be the best therapeutic choice for all pediatric patients. Other antibiotics, shortened courses of the cephalosporins in particular, may be preferable in some cases.

Loracarbef versus phenoxymethylpenicillin in the treatment of recurrent streptococcal pharyngotonsillitis

Knowledge of the treatment of recurrent group A streptococcal pharyngotonsillitis has, so far, been based on studies of non-recurrent rather than recurrent episodes of the disease. This multicentre, double-blind, randomized trial was designed to compare the efficacy of loracarbef (200 mg twice daily) vs phenoxymethylpenicillin (penicillin V) (800/1000 mg twice daily) each for 10 days in the treatment of recurrent group A streptococcal pharyngotonsillitis. Among the 331 patients enrolled in the study, 265 were evaluable for efficacy. The combined clinical and bacteriological failure rate was 8.2% in the loracarbef group and 21.5% in the penicillin V group (p = 0.008). Bacterial eradication was noted in 90% of loracarbef-treated patients compared to 66% of penicillin V-treated patients (p < 0.0005). The higher bacteriological eradication and clinical efficacy rate among loracarbef patients might be related to higher stability of loracarbef in the presence of beta-lactamases produced by the oral microflora. These results suggest loracarbef to be a strong candidate for treatment of patients with recurrent group A streptococcal pharyngotonsillitis.

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.

The safety profile of loracarbef: clinical trials in respiratory, skin, and urinary tract infections

The efficacy and safety of the antibiotic loracarbef have been demonstrated in a series of 22 clinical trials involving over 9,000 patients. The data compiled from these trials indicate that loracarbef is well tolerated by the majority of patients, including children and elderly patients. Most adverse events in patients receiving loracarbef were mild and transient in nature; only 1.5% of patients discontinued therapy because of drug-related adverse events. The frequency of adverse events associated with this agent compares favorably with that reported for the other antibiotics in these trials. The most commonly reported adverse reaction in the loracarbef study group was diarrhea, but this condition occurred less frequently in patients who received loracarbef than in those treated with the comparative agents. Other gastrointestinal events, such as nausea and vomiting, were reported infrequently. Headache was the second most common adverse event reported and occurred at a slightly higher frequency in the loracarbef-treated group than in patients receiving comparative antibiotics. No clinically significant alterations in laboratory parameters or gastrointestinal flora were observed following loracarbef administration. The compiled data indicate that loracarbef is a safe therapeutic option for the treatment of a wide spectrum of bacterial infections.