Loracarbef versus cefaclor in the treatment of urinary tract infections in women

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.

Loracarbef. A review of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy

Loracarbef is an orally administered member of a new synthetic class of beta-lactam antibiotics, the carbacephems, which is characterised by enhanced chemical stability. At low concentrations (< 2 mg/L) in vitro, it inhibits Streptococcus pneumoniae, S. pyogenes, beta-haemolytic streptococci groups B, C and G. Proteus mirabilis and Moraxella catarrhalis, including beta-lactamase-producing strains. At therapeutic plasma concentrations it is also active in vitro against most strains of Staphylococcus aureus, S. saprophyticus, Escherichia coli and beta-lactamase-positive and -negative strains of Haemophilus influenzae. Like other beta-lactams, loracarbef is inactive against methicillin-resistant strains of S. aureus. When administered at dosages of 200 to 400 mg twice daily, the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of loracarbef is comparable with that of amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in patients with upper or lower respiratory tract infections, and comparable with that of cefaclor in treating infections of the lower respiratory tract, skin and skin structures and urinary tract. Loracarbef and phenoxymethylpenicillin (penicillin V) were equally effective in treating streptococcal pharyngitis and tonsillitis. Loracarbef is generally well tolerated by all age groups and causes less diarrhoea than amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. It is administered twice daily. It offers a suitable alternative to other orally administered antibiotics for the treatment of mild to moderate infections caused by susceptible organisms.

Loracarbef: a new orally administered carbacephem antibiotic

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the in vitro activity, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, and relative merits of loracarbef, a new orally administered carbacephem antibiotic.

DATA SOURCES

Pertinent literature was identified by a review of selected journals and a MEDLINE search. Additional information was provided by the manufacturer of loracarbef.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies that have evaluated the clinical efficacy of loracarbef were included. In vitro studies were included if they used similar methodologies. Additional information was incorporated regarding the chemistry, pharmacokinetics, and adverse effects of loracarbef.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Loracarbef has antibacterial activity against most community-acquired respiratory tract, skin and skin structure, and urinary tract pathogens. The drug is well absorbed after oral administration and plasma concentrations achieved in patients are greater than the in vitro minimum inhibitory concentrations for most of the above bacteria. Although the majority of the clinical studies with loracarbef have methodologic deficiencies, loracarbef therapy has demonstrated similar efficacy in the treatment of upper respiratory tract (except otitis media), lower respiratory tract, skin and skin-structure, and urinary tract infections compared with accepted antibiotics. Potential advantages of the new carbacephem may be improved patient compliance with its less frequent dosing schedule (once or twice a day, depending on the infection), and a low incidence of adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary data indicate that loracarbef may be an alternative agent for the treatment of a variety of community-acquired infections. Additional clinical experience and rigorously controlled comparative clinical trials are necessary to enable practitioners to fully define the therapeutic role of loracarbef.

Antibiotic therapy for urinary tract infections

Loracarbef, a member of the carbacephem class of beta-lactam antibiotics, was tested in randomized, double-blind, parallel studies for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs). In one study conducted in the United States, a 7-day course of once-daily doses of loracarbef (200 mg) was compared with a 7-day course of multiple daily doses of cefaclor (250 mg three times a day). Analysis of data from a small, homogeneous patient population of 108 college-aged women showed that loracarbef produced clinical and bacteriologic responses similar to those produced by cefaclor. At 5-9 days posttherapy, bacteriologic cure was observed in 96% of patients in the loracarbef group and 90% of patients in the cefaclor group (p = 0.614); at 4-6 weeks post-therapy, the same cure rate (81%) was observed in both groups. Analysis of the larger (333 patients) and more heterogeneous study population containing several male and elderly female patients showed that loracarbef again produced responses similar to those produced by cefaclor, with no statistically significant differences seen between the groups at 5-9 days or at 4-6 weeks posttherapy. The adverse events reported by the loracarbef and cefaclor groups were also comparable in both the small and large patient populations analyzed. Similarly favorable results were seen when a 7-day regimen of loracarbef (200 mg once a day) was compared with a 7-day regimen of norfloxacin (400 mg twice a day) in a large European study of approximately 300 patients with uncomplicated cystitis. These studies demonstrate that the safety and efficacy of once-daily loracarbef are comparable to the safety and efficacy of multiple-dose/day therapy with other antimicrobial agents commonly used in the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs.

Comparison of cefprozil and cefaclor for treatment of acute urinary tract infections in women

A total of 108 college women with acute urinary tract infections were treated for 10 days with either 500 mg of cefprozil (BMY-28100-03-800) once a day (n = 72) or 250 mg of cefaclor three times a day (n = 36). Clinical and bacterial cure rates at 1 week posttherapy were 94 and 93%, respectively, for the cefprozil group and 94 and 94%, respectively, for the cefaclor group (P, not significant). Both cefprozil and cefaclor were safe and effective.