Comparison of oral cefpodoxime proxetil and cefaclor in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections

Cefpodoxime proxetil

A comprehensive profile of cefpodoxime proxetil including the nomenclatures, formulae, elemental composition, appearance, uses, and applications. The methods which were developed for the preparation of the drug substance and their respective schemes are outlined. The physical characteristics of the drug including the ionization constant, solubility, X-ray powder diffraction pattern, differential scanning calorimetry, thermal behavior, and spectroscopic studies are included. The methods which were used for the analysis of the drug substance in bulk drug and/or in pharmaceutical formulations includes the compendial, spectrophotometric, electrochemical and the chromatographic methods. The other studies which was carried out on this drug substance are including the drug stability, pharmacokinetics, bioavailability, drug evaluation, comparison and several compiled reviews. Finally, more than two hundred references are listed at the end of this profile.

Interventions for impetigo

BACKGROUND

Impetigo is a common, superficial bacterial skin infection, which is most frequently encountered in children. There is no generally agreed standard therapy, and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including non-pharmacological interventions and 'waiting for natural resolution'.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2010: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials, and we handsearched the reference lists of new studies found in the updated search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous, bullous, primary, and secondary impetigo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors undertook all steps in data collection. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 trials in the first version of this review. For this update 1 of those trials was excluded and 12 new trials were added. The total number of included trials was, thus, 68, with 5578 participants, reporting on 50 different treatments, including placebo. Most trials were in primary impetigo or did not specify this.For many of the items that were assessed for risk of bias, most studies did not provide enough information. Fifteen studies reported blinding of participants and outcome assessors.Topical antibiotic treatment showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2. 24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61 to 3.13) in 6 studies with 575 participants. In 4 studies with 440 participants, there was no clear evidence that either of the most commonly studied topical antibiotics (mupirocin and fusidic acid) was more effective than the other (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11).In 10 studies with 581 participants, topical mupirocin was shown to be slightly superior to oral erythromycin (pooled RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13). There were no significant differences in cure rates from treatment with topical versus other oral antibiotics. There were, however, differences in the outcome from treatment with different oral antibiotics: penicillin was inferior to erythromycin, in 2 studies with 79 participants (pooled RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56), and cloxacillin, in 2 studies with 166 participants (pooled RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.08).There was a lack of evidence for the benefit of using disinfectant solutions. When 2 studies with 292 participants were pooled, topical antibiotics were significantly better than disinfecting treatments (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32).The reported number of side-effects was low, and most of these were mild. Side-effects were more common for oral antibiotic treatment compared to topical treatment. Gastrointestinal effects accounted for most of the difference.Worldwide, bacteria causing impetigo show growing resistance rates for commonly used antibiotics. For a newly developed topical treatment, retapamulin, no resistance has yet been reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more, effective than oral treatment. Due to the lack of studies in people with extensive impetigo, it is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics in this group. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence to support disinfection measures to manage impetigo.

Treatment of skin and soft tissue infections in the elderly: A review

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) have become the second most common type of infection among persons residing in long-term care facilities.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to review the latest information on SSTIs among the elderly, including age-related changes, challenges, and treatment strategies in the era of emerging bacterial resistance.

METHODS

Relevant information was identified through a search of MEDLINE (1970-April 2010), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-April 2010), and Google Scholar using the terms skin and soft tissue infection, skin and skin structure infection, cellulitis, treatment guidelines, and elderly. Additional publications were found by searching the reference lists of the identified articles. Trials published since 1970 were selected for this review if they prospectively evaluated mostly adults (≥18 years of age), included >50 patients, and reported diagnostic criteria as well as clinical outcomes in patients treated for simple or complicated SSTIs.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight of 664 identified studies were selected and included in this review. A search of the literature did not identify any prospective clinical trials that were conducted exclusively in the elderly. Information on the treatment of SSTIs in the elderly was based solely on clinical studies that were conducted in adults in general. As recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2008 update, SSTIs should be suspected in elderly patients who have skin lesions and present with a decline in functional status, with or without fever. Patients who present with symptoms of systemic toxicity should be hospitalized for further evaluation. Current challenges in the management of SSTIs include the rapid emergence of community-acquired, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA), the emergence of macrolide-resistant streptococci within the past decade, and the lack of a reliable algorithm to differentiate potentially life-threatening SSTIs that require aggressive interventions and prompt hospitalization from those that can be managed in an outpatient setting. S aureus was the most common cause of SSTIs, being isolated in 42.8% (5015/11,723) of wounds, followed by streptococci. Common SSTIs in the elderly such as shingles, diabetic foot infections, infected pressure ulcers, and scabies, and their treatment were also discussed. Based on reviews of published trials, treatment of simple SSTIs generally consisted of administration of agents with activity against S aureus and Streptococcus species such as a penicillinase-resistant β-lactam, a first-generation cephalosporin, or clindamycin. Broadening of the antimicrobial spectrum to include gram-negative and anaerobic organisms should be implemented for complicated SSTIs such as diabetic foot infections and infected pressure ulcers. Local rates of MRSA, CA-MRSA, and macrolide-resistant streptococci should be considered when selecting empiric therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A search of the literature did not identify any prospective clinical trials on the treatment of SSTIs in the elderly; therefore, it is recommended to follow treatment based on the current IDSA guidelines. More research and publications are needed to establish proper selection of antimicrobial agents, treatment strategies, and duration of therapy of SSTIs in the elderly population.

Oral β-lactams applied to uncomplicated infections of skin and skin structures

Uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (uSSSIs) include impetigo, erysipelas, folliculitis, simple abscesses, and cellulitis. Their common bacterial causative agents include Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes. Current guidelines predate the widespread occurrences of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) as a community-acquired pathogen and include dicloxacillin, cephalexin, erythromycin, clindamycin, and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, all orally, or mupirocin ointment applied topically, for impetigo. For other uSSSI, recommendations are based on the probability of the infection being caused by MRSA. If methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) are known or suspected, the oral agents recommended include clindamycin, dicloxacillin, cephalexin, doxycycline, minocycline, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT). For MRSA, recommended oral agents are linezolid, clindamycin, doxycycline, minocycline, and SXT. Because community-acquired MRSA infections now predominate in patients with abscesses in the United States, agents recommended for MRSA should be used for this indication. Local susceptibility patterns should guide empiric therapy. However, no placebo-controlled trials of uSSSI are available, and the evidence used to generate these recommendations is based on comparative noninferiority studies, often with wide noninferiority margins and confidence intervals. The evidence used in developing current guidelines therefore has significant limitations. Further studies, such as superiority outcome studies, placebo-controlled studies, measurement of time to resolution, or other novel approaches, are needed to resolve these treatment dilemmas. Until such studies are performed, the best surrogate available for predicting clinical outcome is application of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles; these describe in vivo drug behavior and allow determination of susceptibility breakpoints for predicting in vivo antimicrobial efficacy via attainment of antimicrobial targets.

Staphylococcal skin infections in children: rational drug therapy recommendations

Staphylococcus aureus remains one of the most common and troublesome of bacteria causing disease in humans, despite the development of effective antibacterials and improvement in hygiene. The organism is responsible for over 70% of all skin and soft tissue infections in children and accounts for up to one-fifth of all visits to pediatric clinics. Skin and soft tissue infections that are predominantly caused by S. aureus include bullous and non-bullous impetigo, folliculitis, furunculosis, carbunculosis, cellulitis, surgical and traumatic wound infections, mastitis, and neonatal omphalitis. Other skin and soft tissue infections may also be caused by S. aureus but are often polymicrobial in origin and require special consideration. These include burns, decubitus ulcers (particularly in the perianal region), puncture wounds of the foot, as well as human and mammalian bites. Treatment of staphylococcal skin infections varies from topical antiseptics to prolonged intravenous antibacterials, depending on severity of the lesions and the health of the child. The treatment of choice for oral antibacterials remains the penicillinase-resistant penicillins such as flucloxacillin. Cefalexin and erythromycin are suitable cost-effective alternatives with broader cover, although care must be taken with the use of macrolides because of development of resistance to multiple families of antibacterials, particularly the lincosamides. Other cephalosporins such as cefadroxil and cefprozil are also effective, can be given once daily and have a better tolerability profile -- while azithromycin has a further advantage of a 3-day course. However, all of these agents are more expensive. Although the antibacterials have been given for 10 days in most clinical trials, there is no evidence that this duration is more effective than a 7-day course. In children requiring intravenous therapy, ceftriaxone has a major advantage over other antibacterials such as sulbactam/ampicillin and cefuroxime in that it can be given once daily and may, therefore, be suitable for outpatient treatment of moderate-to-severe skin infections. Newer-generation cephalosporins and loracarbef are also effective and have a broader spectrum of activity, but do not offer any added benefit and are significantly more expensive. Skin and soft tissue infections due to methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) are still relatively uncommon in children. Well children with community-acquired MRSA infections can be treated with clindamycin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (cotrimoxazole), but must be observed closely for potentially severe adverse effects. In severe infections, vancomycin remains the treatment of choice, while intravenous teicoplanin and clindamycin are suitable alternatives. Linezolid and quinupristin/dalfopristin are currently showing great promise for the treatment of multi-resistant Gram-positive infections. While the choice of antibacterial is important, supportive management, including removal of any infected foreign bodies, surgical drainage of walled-off lesions, and regular wound cleaning, play a vital role in ensuring cure.

Interventions for impetigo

BACKGROUND

Impetigo is a common superficial bacterial skin infection, most frequently encountered in children. There is no standard therapy and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including waiting for natural resolution.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Skin Group Specialised Trials Register (March 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1 2002), the National Research Register (2002), MEDLINE (from 1966 to January 2003), EMBASE (from 1980 to March 2000) and LILACS (November 2001). We handsearched the Yearbook of Dermatology (1938-1966), the Yearbook of Drug Therapy (1949-1966), used reference lists of articles and contacted pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous and bullous, primary and secondary impetigo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All steps in data collection were done by two independent reviewers. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 trials including 3533 participants in total which studied 20 different oral and 18 different topical treatments. CURE OR IMPROVEMENT: Topical antibiotics showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled odds ratio (OR) 6.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.93 to 10.73), and no topical antibiotic was superior (pooled OR of mupirocin versus fusidic acid 1.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.16). Topical mupirocin was superior to oral erythromycin (pooled OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.97). In most other comparisons, topical and oral antibiotics did not show significantly different cure rates, nor did most trials comparing oral antibiotics. Penicillin was inferior to erythromycin and cloxacillin and there is little evidence that using disinfectant solutions improves impetigo.

SIDE EFFECTS

The reported number of side effects was low. Oral antibiotic treatment caused more side effects, especially gastrointestinal ones, than topical treatment.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Data on the natural course of impetigo are lacking. Placebo controlled trials are scarce. There is little evidence about the value of disinfecting measures. There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more effective than oral treatment for people with limited disease. It is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics for people with extensive impetigo. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. Resistance patterns against antibiotics change and should be taken into account in the choice of therapy.

Cefpodoxime: pharmacokinetics and therapeutic uses

Cefpodoxime is a semi-synthetic, third generation cephalosporin. The drug is available for use as a prodrug-Cefpodoxime proxetil, which is absorbed readily from the gut. It reaches adequate levels exceeding the MIC in most of the body fluids. It is excreted by kidneys, unchanged. Dose needs adjustment in compromised renal function. The drug is active against common gram-positive cocci like staphylococci including penicillinase producing strains, streptococci and gram negative bacteria like Hemophilus, E. coli, Klebsiella, Moraxella, Meningococci, Gonococci etc. The drug is useful in common upper and lower respiratory tract infections, sinusitis, and otitis media. The drug is also used in skin and soft tissue infections, urinary tract infection and respiratory tract infection. Cefpodoxime is being used as a step down from parenteral cephalosporin. The recommended dose is 8-10 mg/kg/d in a single or two doses. Different schedules have been given for different infections. The drug is safe, effective as a short course (5 vs. 10 days). With a low incidence of side effects, and twice a day dosing, it proves to be a useful drug.

Newer concepts in antimicrobial therapy

Antimicrobial agents continue to play a significant role in clinical practice not only due to their active role in the treatment of bacterially induced infections. The accompanying anti-inflammatory characteristics and their antagonism against superantigens add to their importance. The practitioner must also be aware of both overt and covert unwanted effects. During the past decade, the new quinolones, advanced macrolides, and better cephalosporins have been introduced. The staid penicillins have been up-graded with the addition of a beta-lactamase inhibitor. Many antibiotics have been available for several decades but new uses for them and their derivatives permit the dermatologist to have a more versatile armamentarium. Rifamycin has been shown to be effective in the treatment of leishmaniasis. The new macrolide, clarithromycin, will reduce the lesions of acne vulgaris and acne rosacea. Although phototoxicity was well recognised in the sulfonomides, several quinolones can create similar light-induced problems. Bullous diseases are known to be instigated by the penicillins, while vasculitis may be caused by a quinolone. Even porphyria has been reported to be induced by a tetracycline. Antimicrobial therapy has been an integral part of dermatologic practice since the introduction of the sulfa drugs six decades ago. Whether skin is affronted by more pathogenic bacteria than any other organ or whether the percentage of infectious etiologies is greater for cutaneous maladies than for other organ afflictions is not germane to this presentation. The facts remain that signs and symptoms of many dermatitides are diminished or even eliminated by antimicrobials [1, 2, 3, 4].

Antibiotics in the management of pediatric skin disease

An increasingly large number of antibiotics are available for the treatment of uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections in children. Primary factors in the choice among these agents are the antibiotic resistance profile of the target pathogen(s), and the antibiotic's spectrum of activity, pharmacologic properties, potential adverse reactions and interactions and propensity to select for the emergence of resistant organisms. Based on a consideration of these principles, this article provides a practical guide to the use of antibiotics in the management of common cutaneous infections in the pediatric population.

Antimicrobial agents for the dermatologist. I. Beta-lactam antibiotics and related compounds

We review the newer antimicrobial agents that are being employed by dermatologists with increased frequency as well as some of the more commonly used older agents. Particular emphasis is based on selection factors such as causative pathogens and their resistance profiles, routes of administration, toxicity, drug interactions, and dosing requirements. Emphasis in this review is on the newer classes of antimicrobials such as third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins; beta-lactam, beta-lactamase inhibitor combination agents; monobactams; carbapenems; macrolides; and fluoroquinolones. Dermatologic indications and treatment alternatives are highlighted; this will expand the practicing clinician's therapeutic armamentarium and enable him/her to make rational decisions concerning treatment approaches to infectious disease problems encountered in daily practice.

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.