Bactericidal titers of loracarbef (LY 163892) in serum and killing rates in volunteers receiving 400 versus 200 milligrams

A national collaborative study of the in vitro activity of oral cephalosporins and loracarbef (LY 163892). Australian Group for the Study of Antimicrobial Resistance (AGAR)

A national collaborative study involving the laboratories of 17 Australian hospitals examined the in vitro activity of loracarbef, cefaclor, cephalexin, amoxycillin and amoxycillin/clavulanate against 2661 recently isolated common bacterial pathogens. Loracarbef was the most active agent against Escherichia coli (MIC90 = 1 mg/l) and had activity comparable to other agents against Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus mirabilis. Like the oral cephalosporins, it had no activity against species of Enterobacter and Serratia. beta-lactamase-producing Staphylococcus aureus and Haemophilus influenzae were moderately sensitive to loracarbef (MIC90 = 8 mg/l for both species). Streptococcus pneumoniae was moderately sensitive to loracarbef (MIC90 = 2 mg/l) but strains which were insensitive to penicillin were often highly resistant.

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.