Pediatric Drugs

, Volume 4, Issue 5, pp 323–333 | Cite as

Formulations of Antibiotics for Children in Primary Care

Effects on Compliance and Efficacy
  • Andres Ramgoolam
  • Russell Steele
Review Article


This review article is designed for pediatricians as well as primary care physicians in the outpatient setting as a clinical guide to antibiotic selection. It emphasizes variables related to compliance as well as efficacy. The aim is to give recommendations as to the choice of antibiotics, depending on factors such as taste, cost, efficacy, and compliance.

Common bacterial pathogens causing infections in children are reviewed, along with their susceptibility patterns to antimicrobial agents. Emerging mechanisms of resistance, particularly the increasing resistance of pneumococci to β-lactam antibiotics, are discussed because of their importance to antibiotic selection. Previously published studies that have examined the treatment of common outpatient infections in children, such as otitis media, streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis, and sinusitis, are summarized. Adverse reactions associated with antibiotics, second in importance only to efficacy, are reviewed. Finally, compliance issues, which include palatability, cost, duration of therapy, and administration frequency, are analyzed using recently published information related to each of these issues.

The efficacy of the commonly used antibiotics for urinary tract infections, pneumonia, and streptococcal pharyngitis does not vary significantly; however, for otitis media and sinusitis, some studies have shown that treatment efficacy with the antibiotic does not vary significantly from that with placebo. Likewise, adverse reactions rarely provide a basis for antibiotic selection, since virtually all antibiotics are generally well tolerated. The final factor, compliance, is a major issue in determining both first- and second-line therapy of common outpatient infections in children. Although cost is not a factor in compliance in countries such as the UK where no copayment is required for pediatric drugs, it is of major importance in the US. This is followed by palatability, administration duration and finally administration frequency. As a group, cephalosporins are generally the best tasting but are relatively more expensive than macrolides. Antibiotics that can be given for 5 days, and just once or twice daily, are preferred by most parents and physicians. Since final assessment of antibiotic choice is likely to vary considerably among healthcare personnel, decisions must be made on an individual basis.


Clarithromycin Azithromycin Clindamycin Acute Otitis Medium Bacterial Vaginosis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Steele RW. Management of otitis media. Infect Med 1998; 15: 174–203Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dowell SF, Marcy SM, Phillips WR, et al. Otitis media: principles of judicious use of antimicrobial agents. Pediatrics 1998; 101(1): 165–71Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Steele RW, Suskind-Liu DL. Contemporary diagnosis and management of otitis media. Newtown (PA): Handbooks in Health Care, 2000: 83–103Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steele RW, Thomas MP, Begue RE. Compliance issues related to the selection of antibiotic suspensions for children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001; 20: 1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ogle JW. Antimicrobial therapy for ambulatory pediatrics. Pediatric Ann 1999; 28(7): 434–44Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fernandes PB, Bacher R, Swanson R, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of A-56268 (TE-031), a new macrolide. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother 1986; 30(6): 865–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herold BC, Immergluck LC, Maranan MC, et al. Community acquired methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in children with no identified predisposing risk. JAMA 1998; 279: 593–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zurenko GE, Yagi BH, Schaadt RD, et al. In vitro activity of U-100592 and U-100766 oxazolidinone antibacterial agents. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother 1996; 40: 839–45Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Birmingham MC, Zimmer GS, Hafkin B, et al. Outcomes with linezolid from an ongoing compassionate use trial of patients with significant resistant gram-positive infections [abstract 1098]. 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1999 Sep 26–29; San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pichichero ME, Cohen R. Shortened course of antibiotic therapy for acute otitis media, sinusitis and tonsillopharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999; 16: 680–95Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dagan R, Leibovitch E, Fliss DM, et al. Treatment failures in otitis media: what can we learn? Ear Nose Throat J 1998; 77(6 Suppl.): 16–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steigbigel NH. Macrolides and clindamycin. In: Mandell GL, Bennet JE, Dolin R, editors. Mandell, Douglas and Bennett’s principles and practice of infectious diseases. Vol. 1. 4th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1995: 334–47Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seppala H, Nissinen A, Jarvinen H, et al. Resistance to erythromycin in group A streptococci. N Engl J Med 1992; 326(5): 292–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seppala H, Klaukka T, Voupio-Varkila J, et al. The effect of changes in the consumption of macrolide antibiotics on erythromycin resistance in group A streptococci in Finland. Finnish Study Group for Antimicrobial Resistance. N Engl J Med 1997; 337(7): 441–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wormser GP, Keusch GT. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole in the United States. Ann Intern Med 1979; 91: 420–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yee YC, Thornsberry C, Brown SD, et al. A comparative study of the in-vitro activity of cefepime and other antimicrobial agents against penicillin-susceptible and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32Suppl. B: 13–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doesn GV, Pfaller MA, Kugler K, et al. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among respiratory tract isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae in North America: 1997 results from the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 764–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friedland IR, McCracken Jr GH. Management of infections caused by antibiotic resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 377–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tomasz A. Antibiotic resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24Suppl. 1: S85–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thornsberry C, Ogilvie P, Kahn J, et al. Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae, Hemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis in the United States in 1996–1997 respiratory season. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1997; 29: 249–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baker CN, Thornsberry C, Jones RN. In vitro antimicrobial activity of cefoperazone, cefotaxime, moxalactam (LY127935), azlocillin, mezlocillin, and other beta-lactam antibiotics against Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Haemophilus influenzae including beta-lactamase-producing strains. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother 1980; 17(4): 757–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thornsberry C, Ogilvie PT, Holley Jr HP, et al. Survey of susceptibilities of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis isolates to 26 antimicrobial agents: a prospective US study. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 2612–23Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dagan R, Johnson CE, McLinn S, et al. Bacteriologic and clinical efficacy of amoxicillin/clavulanate vs azithromycin in acute otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19: 95–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guay DRP. Formulary management of macrolide antibiotics. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8: 491–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Piscitelli SC, Danziger LH, Rodvold KA. Clarithromycin and azithromycin: new macrolide antibiotics. Clin Pharm 1992; 11: 137–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibiotic dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26: 1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aronovitz GH. Antimicrobial therapy of acute otitis media: review of treatment recommendations. Clin Ther 2000; 22: 29–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lacy MK, Nicolau DP, Nightingale CH, et al. The pharmacodynamics of amino-glycosides. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 23–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lode H, Borner K, Koeppe P. Pharmacodynamics of fluoroquinolones. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 33–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Levison ME. Pharmacodynamics of antimicrobial agents: bactericidal and postantibiotic effects. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1995; 15: 518–24Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lebel M. Comparative pharmacokinetics of new macrolides. Can J Infect Dis 1993; 4: 149–51Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chu S, Park Y, Locke C, et al. Drug-food interaction potential of clarithromycin, a new macrolide antimicrobial. J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 32: 32–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chu SY, Deaton R, Cavanaugh J. Absolute bioavailability of clarithromycin after oral administration in humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 1147–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ferrero JL, Bopp BA, Marsh KC, et al. Metabolism and disposition in man. Drug Metab Dispos 1990; 18: 441–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Foulds G, Shepard RM, Johnson RB. The pharmacokinetics of azithromycin in human serum and tissues. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25Suppl. A: 73–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wright AJ. The penicillins. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 290–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stohlmeyer LA, Kraus DM. Oral cephalosporins: focus on new agents. J Pediatr Health Care 1996; 10: 289–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guay DRP. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of cefdinir, an oral extended cephalosporin. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19(12 Suppl.): S141–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rodriguez WJ, Wiederman BL. The role of newer oral cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, and macrolides in the treatment of pediatric infections. Adv Pediatr Infect Dis 1994; 9: 125–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Harrison CJ. Perspectives on newer oral antimicrobials: what do they add? Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995; 14: 436–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Marshall WF, Blair JE. The cephalosporins. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 187–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Alvarez-Elcoro S, Enzler MJ. The macrolides. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 613–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parry MF, Rha CK. Pseudomembranous colitis caused by topical clindamycin phosphate. Arch Dermatol 1986; 122: 583–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kasten MJ. Clindamycin, metronidazole, and chloramphenicol. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 825–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    McGehee Jr RF, Barrett FF, Finland M. Resistance of Staphylococcus aureus to lincomycin, clindamycin, and erythromycin. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother 1969; 13: 397–397Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Walker RC. The fluoroquinolones. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 1030–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Saiman L, Mehar F, Niu WW, et al. Antibiotic susceptibility of multiply resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from patients with cystic fibrosis, including candidates for transplantation. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 23: 532–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dowell SF, Butler JC, Giebink GS, et al. Acute otitis media: management and surveillance in era of pneumococcal resistance: a report from the Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae Therapeutic Working Group. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999; 18: 1–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ahuja GS, Thomson J. What role for antibiotics in otitis media and sinusitis? Postgrad Med 1998; 104(3): 93–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Douville L. Management of acute sinusitis. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 1995; 7: 407–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Damoiseaux RAMJ, van Balen FAM, Hoes AW, et al. Primary care based randomized, double blind trial of amoxicillin vs placebo for acute otitis media in children under two years. BMJ 2000; 320: 350–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Klein JO. History of macrolide use in pediatrics. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997; 16: 427–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kaliner MA, Osguthorpe JD, Fireman P, et al. Sinusitis, bench to bedside: current findings, future directions. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1997; 99: S829–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Low DE, Desrosiers M, McSherry J, et al. A practical guide for the diagnosis and treatment of acute sinusitis. CMAJ 1997; 156Suppl. 6: S1–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    O’Brien K, Dowell SF, Schwartz B, et al. Acute sinusitis: principles of judicious use of antimicrobial agents. Pediatrics 1998; 101(1): 174–7Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Laurier C, Lachaine J, Ducharme M, et al. Economic evaluation of antibacterials in the treatment of acute sinusitis. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 97–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    De Bock GH, Dekker FW, Stolk J, et al. Antimicrobial treatment in acute maxillary sinusitis: a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 881–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Garbutt JM, Goldstein M, Gelman E, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of antimicrobial treatment for children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis. Pediatrics 2001; 107: 619–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Conde MV, Williams JW, Witsell DL, et al. Management of a 35 year old with acute nasal and sinus complaints. J Clin Outcomes Manage 1998; 5: 63–76Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gwaltney Jr JM. State of the art: acute community acquired sinusitis. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 23: 1209–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Schwartz B, Marcy SM, Philips WR, et al. Pharyngitis: principles of judicious use of antimicrobial agents. Pediatrics 1998; 101: 171–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Turner RB, Lande AE, Chase P, et al. Pneumonia in pediatric outpatients: cause and clinical manifestations. J Pediatr 1987; 111: 194–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bartlett JG, Breiman RF, Mandell LA, et al. Community acquired pneumonia in adults: guidelines for management. The Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26: 811–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Heffelfinger JD, Dowell SF, Jorgensen JH, et al. Management of community-acquired pneumonia in the era of pneumococcal resistance: a report from the Drug-Resistant Streptococcus Pneumoniae Therapeutic Working Group. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 1399–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hoberman A, Wald ER. Urinary tract infections in young febrile children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997; 16: 11–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Johnson CE. New advances in childhood urinary tract infection. Pediatr Rev 1999; 20(10): 335–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mallory SB. Azithromycin compared with cephalexin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Am J Med 1991; 91Suppl. 3A: 36–39SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Howie VM, Ploussard JH. The ‘in vivo sensitivity test’: bacteriology of the middle ear exudates during antimicrobial therapy in otitis media. Pediatrics 1969; 44: 940–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Klein JO. Microbiologic efficacy of antibacterial drugs for acute otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1993; 12(12): 973–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Harwell JI, Brown RB. The drug-resistant pneumococcus: clinical relevance, therapy, and prevention. Chest 2000; 117(2): 530–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schiffman SS, Wedral E. Contribution of taste and smell losses to the wasting syndrome. Age Nutr 1996; 7: 106–20Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schiffman SS. Taste and smell losses in normal aging and disease. JAMA 1997; 278: 1357–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bauchner H, Klein JO. Parenteral issues in selection of antimicrobial agents for infants and children. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1997; 36: 201–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Marchant CD, Carlin SA, Johnson CE, et al. Measuring the comparative efficacy of bacterial agents for otitis media: the ‘Pollyanna phenomenon’. J Pediatr 1992; 120: 72–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Dagan R. Dynamics of pneumococal nasopharyngeal colonization during the first days of antibiotic treatment in pediatric patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998; 17(10): 880–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Infectious DiseasesChildren’s HospitalNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations