Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cefotaxime Optimal Dosage in Adult Patients

A Reappraisal

  • Section 5: Considerations on Dosing and Cost Effectiveness
  • Published:
Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Cefotaxime, a third generation cephalosporin, is used throughout the world over a wide range of doses. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the rationale for determination of the optimal dosage and of adequate modes of administration. Among the factors determining in vivo activity, the most important are: (1) the time dependence of the antibacterial effect of cephalosporins, (2) the limited effect of increasing the drug concentration in contact with the bacteria and (3) the absence of a significant post-antibiotic effect. Combined with the rather short elimination half-life of cefotaxime, these factors argue for the use of a unitary dose of 1g in adult patients and for a 6-or 8-hour interval between doses. Information obtained from various animal models of infection are discussed. Clinical and bacteriological studies published in the international literature report a high rate of cure (between 80 and 100% ) according to the type of infection and to the criteria of efficacy, with daily doses ranging from 2 to 4g bid or aid. The results obtained with the lowest doses are detailed, particularly for infections permitting the use of a low dosage. The necessity for increasing the dose is discussed in the following situations: (1) in specific infections requiring high local drug concentrations such as meningitis and endocarditis, (2) against micro-organisms exhibiting moderate susceptibility to cefotaxime (MIC ⩾1 mg/L) and (3) in immunocompromised patients.

It is now well established that third generation cephalosporins have to be combined with other antimicrobial agents (e.g. aminoglycosides) for the treatment of patients with infections caused by bacteria able to become resistant. For susceptible strains, it has not been established that a Synergistic effect of cefotaxime with another agent allows a reduction of the dosage of each member of the combination.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bassaris HP, Lianon PE, Volta EG, Papavasition JTh. Effects of subinhibitory concentrations of cefotaxime on adhesion and polymorphonuclear leucocyte function with Gram-negative bacteria. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 14 (Suppl. B): 91–96, 1984

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bundtzen RW, Gerber AV, Cohn DL, Craig WA. Post antibiotic suppression of bacterial growth. Review of Infectious Diseases 3: 28–37, 1981

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carbon C, Manuel Ch. L’évaluation de la posologie des antibiotiques. Journal de Pharmacologie 17 (Suppl. 1): 51–52, 1986

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carbon C, Auboyer C, Becq-Giraudon B, Motin JP, Vachon F, et al. Cefotaxime vs cefotaxime + amikacin in the treatment of septicaemia due to enterobacteria: a multicentric prospective study. Fifth Mediterranean Congress of Chemotherapy, Cairo. Abstract no. 01, 1986

  • Carmine AA, Brogden RN, Heel RC, Speight TM, Avery GS. Cefotaxime: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacological properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 25: 223–289, 1983

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cherubin CE, Corrado ML, Nai SR, Gombert ME, Landsman S, et al. Treatment of Gram-negative bacillary meningitis: role of the new cephalosporin antibiotics. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 4 (Suppl.): S453–S464, 1982

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Craig WA, Vogelman B. The post-antibiotic effect. Annals of Internal Medicine 106: 900–902, 1987

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Durack DT, Beeson PB. Experimental bacterial endocarditis. II. Survival of a bacteria in endocardial vegetations. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 53: 50–53, 1972

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eagle H, Fleischman R, Levy M. ‘Continuous’ vs ‘discontinuous’ therapy with penicillin. The effect of the interval between injections on therapeutic efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine 248: 481–488, 1953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eng RHK, Cherubin C, Smith SM, Buccini F. Examination of Gram-negative bacilli from meningitis patients who failed or relapsed on moxalactam therapy. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 26: 850–856, 1984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frimodt-Möller N, Bentzon WM, Thomsen VF. Experimental infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae in mice: correlation of in vitro activity and pharmacokinetic parameters with in vivo effect for 14 cephalosporins. Journal of Infectious Diseases 154: 511–517, 1986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gengo FM, Mannion TW, Nightingale CH, Schentag JJ. Integration of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of methicillin in curative treatment of experimental endocarditis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 14: 619–621, 1984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ings RM, Fillastre JP, Godin M, Leroy A, Humbert G. The pharmacokinetics of cefotaxime and its metabolites in subjects with normal and impaired renal function. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 4 (Suppl.); S379–S391, 1982

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkinson SG, Briggs MS, Bryn RD. Cefotaxime in the treatment of pneumococcal pneumonia. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 6 (Suppl. A): 177–180, 1980

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones RD, Thornsberry C. Cefotaxime: a review of in vitro antimicrobial properties. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 4 (Suppl.): S316–S325, 1982

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kawada Y, Shimizu Y, Nishiura T. Comparative studies of cefotaxime and sulbenicillin in complicated urinary tract infections. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 6 (Suppl. A): 213–218, 1980

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kermarec J, Sauvaget J. Le céfotaxime dans le traitement des affections bronchopulmonaires. Nouvelle Presse Médicale 10: 650–653, 1981

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klastersky J, Glauser MP, Schimpff SC, Zinner SH, Gaya H. Prospective randomized comparison of three antibiotic regimens for empirical therapy of suspected bacteremic infection in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 29: 263–270, 1986

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kunin CC. Dosage schedules of antimicrobial agents: a historical review. Review of Infectious Diseases 3: 4–11, 1981

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie GY, Bergeron MG. Influence of four modes of administration on penetration of aztreonam, cefuroxime, and ampicillin into interstitial fluid and fibrin-clots, and on in vivo efficacy against Haemophilus influenzae. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 28: 404–412, 1985

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig G, Knebel L. Cefotaxime in urinary tract infections. Comparative clinical studies with gentamicin and with cefotaxime. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 6 (Suppl. A): 207–221, 1980

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maesen FPV, Davies BI, Drenth BMH, Elfers H. Treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis.with cefotaxime: a controlled clinical trial. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 6 (Suppl. A): 187–192, 1980

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mattie H, Kunst MW. Animal models for the assessment of potentiation of antibiotics by probenecid and by host resistance. Infection 6 (Suppl. 1): S36–S37, 1978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miki F, Shiota K. Cefotaxime in lower respiratory tract infections compared to cefazolin. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 6 (Suppl. A): 169–175, 1980

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newson SWB, Mattews J, Pearce VR. Cefotaxime for urinary tract infections. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 6 (Suppl. A): 199–203, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordbring F. Current practice in penicillin dosing. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 8 (Suppl. C): 1–6, 1981

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pangon B, Joly V, Vallois JM, Abel L, Buré A, et al. Comparative efficacy of cefotiam, cefmenoxime, and ceftriaxone in experimental endocarditis and correlation with pharmacokinetics and in vitro efficacy. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 4: 518–522, 1987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker RH. Effect of frequency of administration on therapeutic efficacy of cefotaxime. Clinical Therapeutics 6: 488–499, 1984

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins RL. Clinical trials of cefotaxime for the treatment of bacterial infections of the lower respiratory tract. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 4 (Suppl.): S421–S431, 1982

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prat V, Horcickova M, Halala M. Single dose treatment with netilmicin for different clinical forms of urinary tract infections. Infection 12: 99–104, 1984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prat V, Horcickova M, Milotova Z, Matousovic K. Single dose cefotaxime in the treatment of urinary tract infection with 1g of cefotaxime. In Neu (Ed.) Cefotaxime: a selection of papers presented at the 14th International Congress of Chemotherapy, Kyoto, pp. 112–115, Excerpta Medica, 1985

  • Repetto HA, MacLoughlin GJF. Single-dose cefotaxime in the treatment of urinary tract infections in children: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 14 (Suppl. B): 307–310, 1984

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan G, Marding GKM, Ronald AR. Advances in the treatment of urinary tract infection. American Journal of Medicine 76 (Suppl. 5A): 141–147, 1984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith CR, Ambinder R, Lipsky JJ, Petty BG, Israel E, et al. Cefotaxime compared with nafcillin plus tobramycin for serious bacterial infections. Annals of Internal Medicine 101: 469–477, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  • Sow AB. Cefotaxime treatment of meningitis in children. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 14 (Suppl. B): 191–194, 1984

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stolz E, Oney L, Van Joost T, Michel MF. Treatment of non complicated urogenital, rectal and oropharyngeal gonorrhea with intramuscular cefotaxime l.0g and cefuroxime 1.5g. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 14 (Suppl. B): 295–299, 1984

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tauber MG, Sande MA. Principles in the treatment of bacterial meningitis. American Journal of Medicine 76 (Suppl. 5A): 224–230, 1984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thornsberry C, Jones RN, Barry AL, Fuchs PC. Antimicrobial susceptibility tests with cefotaxime and correlation with clinical bacteriologic response. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 4 (Suppl.): S316–S324, 1982

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Viladrich PF, Pallares R, Ariza J, Rufi G, Gudial F. Four days of penicillin therapy for meningitis. Archives of Internal Medicine 146: 2380–2382, 1986

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Bichat Hospital, Paris VII University, Paris, France

    Alain Simon & Claude Carbon

  2. Roussel-Uclaf, Paris, France

    Catherine Aumont d’Aubrac & Christine Safran

Authors
  1. Alain Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine Aumont d’Aubrac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christine Safran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Claude Carbon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simon, A., d’Aubrac, C.A., Safran, C. et al. Cefotaxime Optimal Dosage in Adult Patients. Drugs 35 (Suppl 2), 221–230 (1988). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-198800352-00049

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-198800352-00049

Keywords

Search

Navigation