Five-day cefdinir treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis. Cefdinir Pharyngitis Study Group

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.

Impact analysis of expanding narrow-spectrum antibiotic use for children with ear, sinus and throat infections

Aim: Estimate the impacts treating acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in children aged 6 months through 12 years with narrow-spectrum antibiotics. Materials & methods: Decision-tree model to estimate children's health, healthcare utilization and costs, and caregiver's time and costs for using narrow-spectrum antibiotics in eligible children with an ARTI, compared with current use of narrow- and broad-spectrum antibiotics. Results: Reduced adverse drug reactions by 35,750 (14%) cases) and 4750 (12%) fewer emergency department visits, 300 (12%) fewer hospitalizations, and 50,500 (10%) avoided outpatient visits. Annual healthcare costs fell by US$120 million (22%). Total societal costs declined by US$131 million (20%). Conclusion: National implementation of narrow-spectrum antibiotics to treat ARTIs in children improves patient outcomes and reduces caregiver burden and annual healthcare costs.

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.

Short- vs. Long-Course Antibiotic Treatment for Acute Streptococcal Pharyngitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effectiveness of short courses of antibiotic therapy for patients with acute streptococcal pharyngitis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing short-course antibiotic therapy (≤5 days) with long-course antibiotic therapy (≥7 days) for patients with streptococcal pharyngitis were included. Two primary outcomes: early clinical cure and early bacterial eradication.

RESULTS

Fifty randomized clinical trials were included. Overall, short-course antibiotic treatment was as effective as long-course antibiotic treatment for early clinical cure (odds ratio (OR) 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.15). Subgroup analysis showed that short-course penicillin was less effective for early clinical cure (OR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.82) and bacteriological eradication (OR 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.61) in comparison to long-course penicillin. Short-course macrolides were equally effective, compared to long-course penicillin. Finally, short-course cephalosporin was more effective for early clinical cure (OR 1.48; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.96) and early microbiological cure (OR 1.60; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.27) in comparison to long-course penicillin. In total, 1211 (17.7%) participants assigned to short-course antibiotic therapy, and 893 (12.3%) cases assigned to long-course, developed adverse events (OR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Macrolides and cephalosporins belong to the list of "Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials"; hence, long-course penicillin V should remain as the first line antibiotic for the management of patients with streptococcal pharyngitis as far as the benefits of using these two types of antibiotics do not outweigh the harms of their unnecessary use.

Treatment Challenges of Group A Beta-hemolytic Streptococcal Pharyngo-Tonsillitis

Introduction  Despite its in vitro efficacy, penicillin often fails to eradicate Group A β-hemolytic streptococci (GABHS) from patients with acute and relapsing pharyngo-tonsillitis (PT). Objective  This review of the literature details the causes of penicillin failure to eradicate GABHS PT and the therapeutic modalities to reduce and overcome antimicrobial failure. Data Synthesis  The causes of penicillin failure in eradicating GABHS PT include the presence of β lactamase producing bacteria (BLPB) that "protect" GABHS from any penicillin; the absence of bacteria that interfere with the growth of GABHS; co-aggregation between GABHS and Moraxella catarrhalis; and the poor penetration of penicillin into the tonsillar tissues and the tonsillo-pharyngeal cells, which allows intracellular GABHS and Staphylococcus aureus to survive. The inadequate intracellular penetration of penicillin can allow intracellular GABHS and S. aureus to persist. In the treatment of acute tonsillitis, the use of cephalosporin can overcome these interactions by eradicating aerobic BLPB (including M. catarrhalis), while preserving the potentially interfering organisms and eliminating GABHS. Conclusion  In treatment of recurrent and chronic PT, the administration of clindamycin, or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, can eradicate both aerobic and anaerobic BLPB, as well as GABHS. The superior intracellular penetration of cephalosporin and clindamycin also enhances their efficacy against intracellular GABHS and S. aureus.

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.

Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of group A streptococcal pharyngitis: 2012 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

The guideline is intended for use by healthcare providers who care for adult and pediatric patients with group A streptococcal pharyngitis. The guideline updates the 2002 Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline and discusses diagnosis and management, and recommendations are provided regarding antibiotic choices and dosing. Penicillin or amoxicillin remain the treatments of choice, and recommendations are made for the penicillin-allergic patient, which now include clindamycin.

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.

Comparative study of 5-day cefcapene-pivoxil and 10-day amoxicillin or cefcapene-pivoxil for treatment of group A streptococcal pharyngitis in children

In order to compare the bacteriological and clinical efficacy and safety of cefcapene-pivoxil (CFPN-PI) for 5 days, CFPN-PI for 10 days, and amoxicillin (AMPC) for 10 days for the treatment of pharyngitis due to group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus (GAS) in children, a prospective multicenter randomized open-label comparative study was performed with 12 pediatric clinics in Asahikawa between June 2006 and February 2007. Two hundred and fifty children (age range 6 months to 12 years) with signs and symptoms of acute pharyngitis were enrolled. All had a positive throat culture for GAS and were fully evaluable. Eighty-two patients received CFPN-PI 9-10 mg/kg/day three times a day for 5 days, 88 received CFPN-PI three times a day for 10 days, and 80 received AMPC three times a day for 10 days. The CFPN-PI for 5 days regimen, the CFPN-PI for 10 days regimen, and the AMPC for 10 days regimen produced bacteriological eradication at the end of treatment in 93.8%, 96.2%, and 91.7% of the patients, respectively. The clinical cure rate observed at the end of therapy was 100% of the patients in the three groups. Relapse rates were 1.3% in CFPN-PI for 5 days, 4.0% in CFPN-PI for 10 days, and 2.9% in AMPC for 10 days. There were no significant differences in eradication rate, clinical cure rate, and relapse rate between the three treatment groups. The only adverse effects were infrequent diarrhea in all three groups, and a rash which occurred in 6 patients (8.0%) of the AMPC treatment group. Five days of treatment with CFPN-PI was as efficacious in bacteriological eradication and clinical response as 10 days of CFPN-PI or AMPC treatment.

Bacterial eradication rates with shortened courses of 2nd- and 3rd-generation cephalosporins versus 10 days of penicillin for treatment of group A streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis in adults

In a meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials involving 1030 adults, the likelihood of bacteriologic eradication in the treatment of group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal (GAS) tonsillopharyngitis with 5 days of select cephalosporins (cefpodoxime, cefuroxime, cefotiam, and cefdinir) was noninferior to 10 days of penicillin (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.22, P = 0.08).

Do physician outcome judgments and judgment biases contribute to inappropriate use of treatments? Study protocol

BACKGROUND

There are many examples of physicians using treatments inappropriately, despite clear evidence about the circumstances under which the benefits of such treatments outweigh their harms. When such over- or under- use of treatments occurs for common diseases, the burden to the healthcare system and risks to patients can be substantial. We propose that a major contributor to inappropriate treatment may be how clinicians judge the likelihood of important treatment outcomes, and how these judgments influence their treatment decisions. The current study will examine the role of judged outcome probabilities and other cognitive factors in the context of two clinical treatment decisions: 1) prescription of antibiotics for sore throat, where we hypothesize overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm leads to over-prescription of antibiotics; and 2) initiation of anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), where we hypothesize that underestimation of benefit and overestimation of harm leads to under-prescription of warfarin.

METHODS

For each of the two conditions, we will administer surveys of two types (Type 1 and Type 2) to different samples of Canadian physicians. The primary goal of the Type 1 survey is to assess physicians' perceived outcome probabilities (both good and bad outcomes) for the target treatment. Type 1 surveys will assess judged outcome probabilities in the context of a representative patient, and include questions about how physicians currently treat such cases, the recollection of rare or vivid outcomes, as well as practice and demographic details. The primary goal of the Type 2 surveys is to measure the specific factors that drive individual clinical judgments and treatment decisions, using a 'clinical judgment analysis' or 'lens modeling' approach. This survey will manipulate eight clinical variables across a series of sixteen realistic case vignettes. Based on the survey responses, we will be able to identify which variables have the greatest effect on physician judgments, and whether judgments are affected by inappropriate cues or incorrect weighting of appropriate cues. We will send antibiotics surveys to family physicians (300 per survey), and warfarin surveys to both family physicians and internal medicine specialists (300 per group per survey), for a total of 1,800 physicians. Each Type 1 survey will be two to four pages in length and take about fifteen minutes to complete, while each Type 2 survey will be eight to ten pages in length and take about thirty minutes to complete.

DISCUSSION

This work will provide insight into the extent to which clinicians' judgments about the likelihood of important treatment outcomes explain inappropriate treatment decisions. This work will also provide information necessary for the development of an individualized feedback tool designed to improve treatment decisions. The techniques developed here have the potential to be applicable to a wide range of clinical areas where inappropriate utilization stems from biased judgments.

Comparison of European and U.S. results for cephalosporin versus penicillin treatment of group A streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis

The outcome of cephalosporin versus penicillin treatment of group A streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis may differ between Europe and the USA. In the present study, Medline, Embase, reference lists, and abstract searches were used to identify randomized, controlled trials of cephalosporin versus penicillin treatment of group A streptococcal (GAS) tonsillopharyngitis. The outcomes of interest were bacteriologic and clinical cure rates from investigations conducted in Europe versus those conducted in the USA. Forty-seven trials involving 11,426 patients were included in the meta-analyses. For the comparison of 10 days of treatment with cephalosporins versus 10 days of treatment with penicillin, there were ten European and 25 U.S. trials, all involving pediatric subjects. The overall odds ratio (OR) favored cephalosporins more strongly in bacteriologic cure rate in Europe (OR=4.27, p<0.00001) than in the USA (OR=2.70, p<0.00001). Studies of 4-5 days of cephalosporin treatment versus 10 days of penicillin treatment were also analyzed. For nine European trials, the OR significantly favored cephalosporins (OR=1.30, p=0.03) in bacteriologic cure rates, but not as strongly as in the USA, (OR=2.41, p<0.00001). When results for 4-5 days of cephalosporin treatment were divided into pediatric versus adult populations, the differences in bacteriologic eradication rates obtained with cephalosporins were more pronounced in children. The likelihood of bacteriologic and clinical failure of GAS tonsillopharyngitis treatment in both European and U.S. patients is significantly less if a 10-day course of oral cephalosporin is prescribed, and is at least similar, if not significantly less, with a 4- to 5-day course of oral cephalosporin compared with a 10-day course of oral penicillin.

Metaanalysis of short course antibiotic treatment for group a streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis

OBJECTIVE

To compare bacterial and clinical cure rates in patients with group A streptococcal (GAS) tonsillopharyngitis treated with oral beta-lactam or macrolide antibiotics for 4-5 days versus 10-day comparators.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, reference lists and abstract searches were used to identify available publications. Trials were included if there was bacteriologic confirmation of GAS tonsillopharyngitis, random assignment to antibiotic therapy for a beta-lactam or macrolide antibiotic of a shortened course versus a 10-day comparator and assessment of bacteriologic outcome using a throat culture.

RESULTS

Twenty-two trials involving 7470 patients were included in 4 separate analyses. Trials were grouped by a short course of cephalosporins (n = 14), macrolides (other than azithromycin) (n = 6) and penicillin (n = 2). Cephalosporin trials were further grouped by the comparator, penicillin or the same cephalosporin. Short course cephalosporin treatment was superior for bacterial cure rate compared with 10 days of penicillin [odds ratio (OR), 1.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-2.03]. For trials with short course macrolide therapy, OR = 0.79 (95% CI 0.59-1.06) neither the macrolides nor the 10-day comparators. Short course penicillin therapy was inferior in achieving bacterial cure versus 10 days of penicillin, OR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.13-0.63). Clinical cure rates mirrored bacteriologic cure rates.

CONCLUSION

Superior cure rates can be achieved with shortened courses of cephalosporin therapy, but 5 days is inferior to 10 days of penicillin treatment.

A pooled comparison of cefdinir and penicillin in the treatment of group a β-hemolytic streptococcal pharyngotonsillitis

OBJECTIVE

This pooled analysis compared the clinical cure and bacterial eradication rates achieved by cefdinir and penicillin in the treatment of group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) pharngotonsillitis.

METHODS

Data from 4 multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigator-blinded trials, 2 in children receiving oral suspensions and 2 in adults receiving capsules/tablets, were pooled and analyzed in terms of clinical cure rates, microbiologic eradication rates, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 2751 patients were enrolled (age <13 years, n = 1274; age > or =13 years, n = 1477). Patients were randomized to receive cefdinir once daily (n = 569) or twice daily (n = 1086) for 5 or 10 days, or penicillin 4 times daily (n = 1096) for 10 days. Of the 2751 patients enrolled, 2198 were evaluable for clinical and microbiologic outcomes. Compared with the 10-day penicillin regimens, the cefdinir regimens for 5 or 10 days produced higher clinical cure and microbiologic eradication rates. Combined clinical cure rates were significantly higher for cefdinir compared with penicillin (94% vs 83%, respectively; P < 0.001). Combined microbiologic eradication rates were also significantly higher for cefdinir compared with penicillin (92% vs 77%; P < 0.001). Both cefdinir and penicillin were well tolerated, as >98% of patients completed the course of therapy.

CONCLUSION

In this pooled analysis of data from 4 multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigator-blinded trials in children and adults, 5- and 10-day regimens of cefdinir achieved significantly higher clinical cure and microbiologic eradication rates compared with 10-day penicillin regimens in the treatment of GABHS pharyngotonsillitis.

Cefdinir: An oral alternative to parenteral cephems

Cost savings are possible if oral cephems of equivalent efficacy can be substituted for parenteral cephems. An in vitro study was performed to compare the activity of cefdinir, cefoxitin, cefazolin, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, and cefepime against 243 clinical isolates of human pathogens. Activities were determined by National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards microbroth dilution methodology using an inoculum of approximately 5 x 10(5) CFU/mL. Cefdinir was the single or equally most potent agent against Streptococcus pyogenes, penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates that produced a variety of beta-lactamase types. Cefdinir was less potent than ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, and cefepime against Haemophilus influenzae, but was 2- to 8-fold more potent than cefoxitin and 8- to 32-fold more potent than cefazolin. Cefdinir was slightly less potent than ceftazidime, against beta-lactamase-positive Moraxella catarrhalis. These data support clinical consideration of cefdinir as an alternative to parenteral cephems in infections where adequate tissue levels can be safely assured.

Cefdinir: a review of its use in the management of mild-to-moderate bacterial infections

Cefdinir (Omnicef) is an oral third-generation cephalosporin with good in vitro activity against many pathogens commonly causative in community-acquired infections. The drug provides good coverage against Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis and penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae, the most common respiratory tract pathogens. Cefdinir is stable to hydrolysis by commonly occurring plasmid-mediated beta-lactamases and retains good activity against beta-lactamase-producing strains of H. influenzae and M. catarrhalis. The drug distributes into various tissues (e.g. sinus and tonsil) and fluids (e.g. middle ear), and has a pharmacokinetic profile that allows for once- or twice-daily administration.Cefdinir, administered for 5 or 10 days, has shown good clinical and bacteriological efficacy in the treatment of a wide range of mild-to-moderate infections of the respiratory tract and skin in adults, adolescents and paediatric patients in randomised, controlled trials. In adults and adolescents, cefdinir is an effective treatment for both lower (acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis [ABECB], community-acquired pneumonia) and upper (acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, streptococcal pharyngitis) respiratory tract infections, and uncomplicated skin infections. Its bacteriological and clinical efficacy in patients with lower respiratory tract infections was equivalent to that of comparator agents (cefprozil [bacteriological only], loracarbef, cefuroxime axetil and cefaclor). In one trial in patients with ABECB, cefdinir produced a higher rate of clinical cure than cefprozil (95% CIs indicated nonequivalence). Cefdinir also produced good clinical and bacteriological responses equivalent to responses with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. In addition, it was at least as effective as penicillin V (phenoxymethylpenicillin) in streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsillitis and as effective as cefalexin in uncomplicated skin infections. In paediatric patients aged > or =6 months, cefdinir showed similar efficacy to that of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid or cefprozil in acute otitis media, and cefalexin in uncomplicated skin infections. Cefdinir given for 5 or 10 days was at least as effective as penicillin V for 10 days in patients with streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsillitis. Cefdinir is usually well tolerated. Diarrhoea was the most common adverse event in trials in all age groups. Although the incidence of diarrhoea in cefdinir recipients was generally higher than in adults and adolescents treated with comparators, discontinuation rates due to adverse events were generally similar for cefdinir and comparator groups. In conclusion, cefdinir is a third-generation cephalosporin with a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity encompassing pathogens that are commonly causative in infections of the respiratory tract or skin and skin structure. Depending on the infection being treated, cefdinir can be administered as a convenient once- or twice-daily 5- or 10-day regimen. Clinical evidence indicates that cefdinir is an effective and generally well tolerated drug with superior taste over comparator antibacterial agents and is therefore a good option for the treatment of adults, adolescents and paediatric patients with specific mild-to-moderate respiratory tract or skin infections, particularly in areas where beta-lactamase-mediated resistance among common community-acquired pathogens is a concern.

Two dosages of clarithromycin for five days, amoxicillin/clavulanate for five days or penicillin V for ten days in acute group A streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis

BACKGROUND

Short course antimicrobial therapy is suggested for group A streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis.

METHODS

The bacteriologic and clinical efficacies of clarithromycin [30 or 15 mg/kg/day twice daily (b.i.d.)] or amoxicillin/clavulanate (43.8/6.2 mg/kg/day b.i.d.) for 5 days or penicillin V (30 mg/kg/day 3 times a day) for 10 days were compared. In a randomized, open label, parallel group, multicenter study, 626 children (2-16 years old) with tonsillopharyngitis were enrolled; 537 were evaluable for efficacy. Follow-up evaluations were performed at 4-8 and 21-28 days after therapy.

RESULTS

At enrollment, 26% of the Streptococcus pyogenes isolates were clarithromycin-nonsusceptible. All regimens had an apparently similar clinical efficacy. The long term S. pyogenes eradication rates were 102 of 123 (83%) with amoxicillin/clavulanate and 88 of 114 (77%) with penicillin V. In the 30- and 15-mg/kg/day clarithromycin groups, eradication occurred in 71 of 86 (83%) and 59 of 80 (74%) of the clarithromycin-susceptible isolates (P = 0.33), and in 4 of 28 (14%) and 5 of 26 (19%) of the clarithromycin-resistant isolates, respectively (clarithromycin-susceptible versus -resistant, P < 0.0001). Both clarithromycin dosages were well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In group A streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis, 5 days of clarithromycin or amoxicillin/clavulanate treatment had clinical efficacy comparable with that of 10 days of penicillin V treatment; however, amoxicillin/clavulanate and penicillin V were bacteriologically more effective than clarithromycin because of its failure to eradicate the clarithromycin-resistant S. pyogenes isolates. The 5-day clarithromycin regimens are not recommended for treatment of streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis in areas where in vitro resistance of group A streptococci to clarithromycin is common.

Short-course antimicrobial therapy of streptococcal pharyngitis

While penicillin administered orally or intramuscularly is the least expensive course of pharyngitis treatment, there are many limitations to its use. These include the need for extended treatment (i.e., 10 days) and poor palatability of its liquid formulation and an alarming increase in the rates of failure with standard doses of either IM or oral penicillin. Increasing rates of beta-lactamase-producing normal flora and eradication of protective alpha-streptococci may also play a role in penicillin treatment failure. Thus practitioners may consider switching to amoxicillin in higher doses (up to 40 to 60 mg/kg/day divided twice daily, maximum dose 1 gram twice daily) as first-line therapy (Figure 1), similar to what we have done for acute otitis media. Five-day short-course treatment with cefdinir or cefpodoxime may be suitable alternatives, especially in patients with penicillin hypersensitivity (not anaphylaxis). Concerns with higher costs of these second-line agents and potential for resistance must be balanced with concerns for patient adherence with penicillin treatment and the recent increasing rate of penicillin failures. In light of recent reports regarding the high rate of failure with azithromycin and increasing macrolide resistance, clinicians should prescribe standard doses of this drug for 5 days with caution.

An alternative procedure for preparation of cefdinir

Cefdinir, a broad spectrum third-generation cephalosporin for oral administration, was prepared by the following synthetic pathway: synthesis of diphenylmethyl 7beta-amino-3-vinyl-3-cephem-4-carboxylate hydrochloride from 7-aminocephalosporanic acid (7-ACA), preparation of sodium 2-(2-tritylaminothiazol-4-yl)-(Z)-2-(tritylhydroxyimino) acetate from ethyl acetoacetate, coupling of both intermediaries to obtain diphenylmethyl 7beta-[2-(2-tritylaminothiazol-4-yl)-(Z)-2-tritylhydroxyimino-3-vinyl-3-cephem-4-carboxylate and final cleavage of trityl and diphenylmethyl protective groups. This procedure allows to obtain better yields of cefdinir and to avoid the use of diketene during the synthesis of this antibiotic by the previously reported method.

Antibacterial therapy for acute group a streptococcal pharyngotonsillitis: short-course versus traditional 10-day oral regimens

The objective of this review is to examine the use of short-course antibacterial therapy of group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) pharyngotonsillitis, compared with traditional 10-day therapy. In preparing this paper we reviewed the medical literature of studies comparing 10 days of penicillin with shorter courses of antibacterial therapy. Short-course therapy of 6 days of amoxicillin, 4 to 5 days of cephalosporins, and 5 days of azithromycin was found to be as, or more effective than traditional 10-day penicillin therapy. The benefits of short-course therapy include superior compliance and adherence, lower incidence of adverse effects, less effect on the bacterial flora, improved patient and parent satisfaction, and lower drug costs. In conclusion, short courses of amoxicillin, cephalosporins, and macrolides provide superior or equal efficacy to a 10-day course of penicillin therapy in the treatment of GABHS pharyngotonsillitis.

Comparison of 5 days of extended-release clarithromycin versus 10 days of penicillin V for the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsillitis: results of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study in adolescent and adult patients

OBJECTIVE

This study compared a short-course of clarithromycin with a standard course of penicillin V in patients with tonsillopharyngitis caused by Streptococcus pyogenes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 539 patients, aged 12-75 years, were randomized to receive either clarithromycin extended-release (ER) 500 mg once daily for 5 days or penicillin V 500 mg three times daily for 10 days in this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Eligibility required a positive antigen test for group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus (GABHS) followed by confirmatory culture.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Bacteriological and clinical assessments were conducted at each study visit (visit 1: study day 1; visit 2: study day 3; visit 3: study days 8-12; visit 4: study days 13-20; and visit 5: study days 40-50).

RESULTS

At the test-of-cure visit (visit 3 for clarithromycin ER patients and visit 4 for penicillin V patients) in per-protocol patients, 5 days of clarithromycin ER was comparable to 10 days of penicillin V in eradicating S. pyogenes (89% (157/177) vs 90% (139/154) respectively; 95% CI for difference (-8.2, 5.1)). Bacterial eradication was sustained in both treatment groups at the follow-up visit (88% (135/153) vs 91% (112/123) respectively; 95% CI for difference (-10.0, 4.4)). Clinical cure was achieved in > or = 94% of patients in each treatment group. The most commonly reported study drug-related adverse events (< or = 3% in either treatment group) were abdominal pain, diarrhea, dyspepsia and nausea.

CONCLUSION

Clarithromycin ER 500 mg once daily for 5 days is equally effective as penicillin V 500 mg three times daily for 10 days in the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis.

Comparative efficacy and safety of 5-day cefaclor and 10-day amoxycillin treatment of group A streptococcal pharyngitis in children

A total of 384 children with group A beta-haemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) pharyngitis were randomized to receive either 40 mg/kg/day of cefaclor in two doses for 5 days (192 patients), or 40 mg/kg/day of amoxycillin in three doses for 10 days (192 patients). The signs and symptoms of pharyngitis were recorded and throat cultures were obtained at presentation and on days 6-7, 11-15, 16-20 and 28-35. Patient compliance was significantly higher in the children treated with cefaclor (100 vs. 95.1%; P = 0.003). At the end of follow-up, the percentage of clinical success was 91.4% for cefaclor and 91.9% for amoxycillin (P = 0.974); bacteriological success was obtained in 85.7 and 89.6% children (P = 0.348), respectively. Both treatments were well-tolerated with adverse event rates of 8.3% in the cefaclor group and 9.4% in the amoxcillin group (P = 0.857). Our study shows that five days' treatment with cefaclor is as effective and safe as the conventional 10-day course of amoxycillin in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis, but compliance seems to be significantly greater.

Cefdinir: an advanced-generation, broad-spectrum oral cephalosporin

BACKGROUND

Cefdinir is an advanced-generation, broad-spectrum cephalosporin antimicrobial agent that has been approved for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia, acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, acute maxillary sinusitis, pharyngitis/tonsillitis, acute bacterial otitis media, and uncomplicated skin and skin-structure infections in adult and pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to review the in vitro antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety, and potential role of cefdinir.

METHODS

Studies were identified by a MEDLINE search (January 1983-September 2001) of the English-language medical literature, a review of identified articles and their bibliographies, and a review of data on file with the manufacturer. Clinical efficacy data were selected from all published trials mentioning cefdinir. Information concerning in vitro susceptibility, safety, chemistry, and the pharmacokinetic profile of cefdinir also was reviewed.

RESULTS

Cefdinir has a broad spectrum of activity against many gram-negative and gram-positive aerobic organisms, including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Cefdinir is stable to hydrolysis by 13 of the common beta-lactamases. It is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract (mean time to peak plasma concentration, 3 hours) and is almost entirely eliminated via renal clearance of unchanged drug. The terminal disposition half-life of cefdinir is approximately 1.5 hours. Efficacy has been demonstrated in 19 clinical trials in adults and children with upper and lower respiratory tract infections (eg, pharyngitis, sinusitis, acute otitis media, acute bronchitis, acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, community-acquired pneumonia), and skin and skin-structure infections. The adverse-event profile is similar to that of comparator agents, although in 4 adult and adolescent studies and 1 adult study, diarrhea occurred significantly more frequently in cefdinir recipients than in recipients of penicillin V, cephalexin, cefaclor, and cefprozil.

CONCLUSIONS

Cefdinir is an alternative to other antimicrobial agents and can be dosed once or twice daily for the treatment of upper and lower respiratory tract infections and skin and skin-structure infections. Similar to other oral expanded-spectrum cephalosporins, cefdinir has activity against common pathogens of the respiratory tract and skin and is stable in the presence of selected beta-lactamases. The clinical choice of an oral expanded-spectrum cephalosporin will be based on patient acceptance, frequency of administration, and cost.

Cefdinir: an expanded-spectrum oral cephalosporin

OBJECTIVE

To review the antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of cefdinir, an expanded-spectrum oral cephalosporin.

DATA SOURCES

Literature was identified by a MEDLINE search (January 1983-November 1999) of the medical literature, review of English-language literature and bibliographies of these articles, and product information.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical efficacy data were selected from all published trials mentioning cefdinir. Additional information concerning in vitro susceptibility, safety, chemistry, and pharmacokinetic profile of cefdinir was also reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Cefdinir, an oral expanded-spectrum cephalosporin, has a broad spectrum of activity against many gram-negative and -positive aerobic organisms, including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Cefdinir is stable to hydrolysis by many common beta-lactamases. Cefdinir is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and is primarily eliminated via renal clearance of unchanged drug. The terminal disposition half-life of cefdinir is approximately 1.5 hours. Efficacy has been demonstrated in a number of clinical trials in adults and children with upper and lower respiratory tract infections (e.g., pharyngitis, sinusitis, acute otitis media, acute bronchitis, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, community-acquired pneumonia) and skin and skin-structure infections. The adverse event profile is similar to that of comparator agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Cefdinir is a second-line alternative to first-line antimicrobial agents, with convenient once- or twice-daily dosing in the treatment of upper and lower respiratory tract infections and skin and skin-structure infections. Similar to other oral expanded-spectrum cephalosporins, cefdinir has activity against common pathogens of the respiratory tract and skin and is stable in the presence of many beta-lactamases. The clinical choice of an oral expanded-spectrum cephalosporin will be based on patient acceptance, frequency of administration, and cost.

The new antibiotics

It is easy to become overwhelmed by the amount of information available on the new antibiotics and difficult to keep abreast of the appropriate indications for each of them. For most patients with community-acquired infections, the first-line agent is usually not one of the newer agents, but a standard regimen, or at times, no antibiotic at all. The development of resistance is likely to parallel the extent to which these agents are prescribed. They should be used only when standard treatment fails, when compliance with treatment is a real and serious issue, or when the patient has a real allergic reaction to the standard regimen.