Skip to main content
Log in

Pediatric tonsillopharyngitis — an evaluation of cefprozil in Indian patients

  • Special Article
  • Published:
The Indian Journal of Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective : The emergence of penicillin resistant strains and the presence of co-pathogens have made the treatment of bacterial infections in children a challenge. Streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis, which is a common infection has been well treated with cefprozil, a novel third generation cephalosporin. The aim of the present study was to evaluate cefprozil in pediatric tonsillopharyngitis. An assessment of the clinical cure and bacteriological eradication rates and an overall tolerability was made.Methods : It was a prospective, open, non-comparative multicentric study. 316 children (mean age 6.61 years) with tonsillopharyngitis were included. Patients were given cefprozil susp 15 mg/kg/day in two divided doses a day for 10 days.Results : A clinical cure of 96.6% and bacteriological eradication of 94.29% was achieved with cefprozil. Overall tolerability of cefprozil was assessed by physicians and 46% rated tolerability of cefprozil as excellent, 38% as very good, 10% as good, 6% as fair and none as poor.Conclusion : Cefprozil has been found to be an excellent drug of superior microbiological and clinical activity in the treatment of pediatric patients with tonsillopharyngitis. The drug also has an expanded spectrum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Milatovic D, Adam D, Hamilton H, Materman E. Cefprozil versus penicillin V in the treatment of streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis.Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1620–1623.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sinkinson CA, Pichichero ME, Centor RM. The compromises of managing acute pharyngitis.Emerg Med 1988; 9:161–68.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gastanaduy AS, Kaplan EL, Huwe BBet al. Failure of penicillin to eradicate group A streptococci during an outbreak of pharyngitis.Lancet 1980; 11:498–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brook L. The role of β lactamase producing bacteria in the persistence of streptococcal bacterial infection.Rev Infect Dis 1984; 6:601–607.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wiseman LR, Benfield P. Cefprozil. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential.Drugs 1993; 45(2): 295–317.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. De la Garza CA, Nolen TM, Rogan MP. Cefprozil vs. erythromycin in streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis.Infections in Medicine 1992; 9(Suppl E): 8–20.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barbarash RA, Solomon E, Thieneman Jr. A, Stricker WE, Scott JCet al. Cefprozil versus amoxicillin/clavulanate in mild to moderate lower respiratory tract infections.Infections in Medicine 1992; 9(Suppl E): 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wilber RB, Hamilton H, Leroy A, Gres J, Durham SJet al. Cefprozil vs. cefaclor in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections.Infections in Medicine 1992; 9(Suppl C): 45–46.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Solomon E, McCarty JM, Morman MR, Ginsberg D, Nolen TM,et al. Comparison of cefprozil and amoxicillin/clavulanate potassium in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections in adults.Advances in Therapy 1992; 9:156–165.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Iravani A, Doyle CA, Durham SJ, Wilber RB. The Cefprozil Multicentre Study Group. Cefprozil vs. cefaclor in the treatment of acute and uncomplicated urinary tract infections.Clinical Therapeutics 1992; 14:314–326.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Barbhaiya RH, Shukla UA, Gleason CRet al. Comparison of cefprozil and cefaclor pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration.Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34:1204–1209.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. R.Brooks GH, Morgantown WV. Cefprozil, A new cephalosporin: Its use in various clinical trials.Southern Medical Journal 1995; 88(3): 338–346.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gerson A. Treatment of upper and lower respiratory tract infections: clinical trials with cefprozil.Pediatr Inf Dis J 1987; 17: S83–88.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ginsburgh CM, McCracken GH, Crow SD, Steinberg JB, Cpoe F. A controlled comparative study of penicillin V and cefadroxil therapy of group A streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis.J Int Med Res 1980; 8(suppl 1): 82–86.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hennes DM. A clinical experience with cefadroxil in upper respiratory tract infection.J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10 (Suppl B):125–35.

    Google Scholar 

  16. De La Garza CA, Nolen TM, Rogan MP. Cefprozil vs. cefaclor in streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis.Infect Med 1992; 9(Suppl E): 8–20.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Doyle CA, Durham SJ, Hamilton HA, Wilber RB. Cefprozil vs. cefaclor in the treatment of pharyngitis and tonsillitis in adults.Infect Med 1992; 9(Suppl E): 66–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sackett DL and Haynes RB, eds.Compliance with Therapeutic Regimens. Baltimore, MD. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976; 293p.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. K. Moharana.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gupta, N., Mukherjee, A. & Moharana, A.K. Pediatric tonsillopharyngitis — an evaluation of cefprozil in Indian patients. Indian J Pediatr 71, 601–605 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02724119

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02724119

Key words

Navigation