In vitro activity and susceptibility to hydrolysis of S-1006

Comparative Clinical Study of Cefcapene Pivoxil and Cefteram Pivoxil in Chronic Respiratory Tract Infections by a Double-blind Method

In a double-blind study, the efficacy and safety of the novel cephem antibiotic cefcapene pivoxil (CFPN-PI; 450 mg/day) was compared with cefteram pivoxil (CFTM-PI; 600 mg/day) in 171 patients with chronic respiratory tract infections. There was no significant difference between the clinical efficacy of the two drugs (80.2% for CFPN-PI versus 78.9% for CFTM-PI). There was no significant difference in the rate of elimination of the causative bacteria (60.5% for CFPN-PI versus 65.9% for CFTM-PI). Side-effects were observed in 6.0% of patients treated with CFPN-PI compared with 6.4% of patients treated with CFTM-PI. There were no significant differences in incidence of abnormal laboratory findings following treatment with the two drugs (13.9% for each), and none of the side-effects was severe. We conclude that CFPN-PI (450 mg/day) was as effective and as well tolerated as CFTM-PI (600 mg/day) in the treatment of chronic respiratory tract infections.

Novel oral cephalosporins

The therapeutic use of oral cephalosporins to treat infectious diseases continues to challenge clinicians; many attempts have been made over recent years to improve the efficacy and spectrum of these anti-infectives. Many oral cephalosporins are in development and include cefdinir, cefprozil, cefetamet pivoxil, cefcapene pivoxil, cefcanel daloxate hydrochloride in Phase II trials, S-1090 in Phase III trials and the novel compounds E1100, E1101 and BRL-57347. Differences between these drugs are sometimes subtle and the improvement over existing compounds modest, although recent cephalosporins have shown greater activity against Gram-negative bacterial infections. A better knowledge of the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interrelationships of existing oral cephalosporins is demanded for a more rational use of these compounds and to avoid the subsequent development of resistance. Perhaps with such an approach, the perceived need for new cephalosporins will diminish.