Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical and Economic Considerations in the Use of Third-Generation Oral Cephalosporins

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

A number of oral third-generation cephalosporins (cefixime, cefetamet pivoxil, ceftibuten and cefpodoxime proxetil) have been widely trial led and are becoming available. In addition, cefdinir may also be marketed.

Compared with first-and second-generation agents, the oral third-generation cephalosporins have an improved antibacterial spectrum and reduced minimum inhibitory concentrations against common Gram-negative pathogens. In contrast, with the exception of cefdinir, they are less active against Staphylococcus aureus. They have favourable pharmacokinetic profiles and are generally administered in once-or twice-daily regimens. They are well tolerated, but cefixime has been associated with a particularly high rate of diarrhoea.

Possible clinical indications for the use of oral third-generation cephalosporins include upper and lower respiratory, genitourinary and soft-tissue infections and follow-on treatment of severe infections requiring hospitalisation. At present, these drugs offer no particular clinical advantages over standard therapy in most circumstances. However, they may be considered where there is hypersensitivity to penicillins, a high incidence of resistance to first-line therapy in the community, or failure of standard therapy.

Further studies are needed to define the efficacy of oral third-generation agents in the prevention of rheumatic fever and as follow-on therapy for severe infections.

The oral third-generation cephalosporins are generally more expensive than standard agents, but detailed studies that include extended costs (e.g. treatment of adverse effects, treatment of clinical failure, return visits to physicians) have yet to be reported.

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

  1. Moellering RC, Sentochnik DE. Cephalosporins. In: Gorbach SL, Bartlett JG, Blacklow NR, editors. Infectious diseases WB Saunders Company, 1992: 172–81

    Google Scholar 

  2. Morrow JD. The oral cephalosporins–a review. Am J Med Sci 1992: 303: 35–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Frampton JE, Brogden RN, Langtry HD, et al. Cefpodoxime proxetil: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs 1992: 44: 889–917

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bryson HM, Brogden RN. Cefetamet pivoxil: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 1993: 45: 589–621

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bauernfeind A. Comparative antimicrobial spectrum and activity of ceftibuten against clinical isolates from West Germany. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1991, 14: 63–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bauernfeind A, Jungwirth R. Antibacterial activity of cefpodoxime in comparison with cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet, ceftibuten, loracarbef, cefprozil, BAY 3522, cefuroxirne, cefaclor and cefadroxil. Infection 1991: 19: 353–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bragman SGL, Casewell MW. The in–vitro activity of ceftibuten against 475 clinical isolates of Gram–negative bacilli, compared with cefuroxime and cefadroxil. J Antimicrob Chemother, 1990: 25; 221–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones RN, Barry AL. Antimicrobial activity, spectrum and recommendations for disk diffusion susceptibility testing of ceftibuten (7432–S: SCH 39720), a new orally administered:cephalosporin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1988: 32: 1576–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wise R, Andrews JM, Ashby JP, et al. Ceftibuten: a new orally absorbed cephalosporin. In vitro activity against strains from the United Kingdom. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1991. 14: 45–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Briggs BM, Jones RN, Erwin ME, et al. In vitro activity evaluations of cefdinir (FK482, CI–983, and PD13439) a novel orally administered cephalosporin. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1991: 14: 425–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gerlach EH, Jones RN, Allen SD, et al. Cefdinir (FK482), an orally administered cephalosporin in vitro activity comparison against recent clinical isolates from five medical centers and determination of MIC quality control guidelines. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992: 15: 537–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wise R, Andrews JM, Thornber D. The in–v itro activity of cefdinir (FK482), a new oral cephalosporin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 28; 239–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wiseman LR, Benfield P, Cefprozil: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs 1993: 45: 295–317

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Peters DH, Clissold SP, Clarithromycin: a review of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs 1992; 44: 117–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Davis R, Bryson HM, Levoflaxacin: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 1994: 47: 677–700

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Angehrn P, Hohl P, Then RL. In vitro antibacterial properties of cefetamet and in vivo activity of its orally absorbable ester derivative, cefetamet pivoxil. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1989: 8: 536–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cullmann W, Then RL. Cefetamet: its in vitro activity and interactions with β–lactamases and penicillin–binding proteins. Drug Invest 1991: 3: 299–307

    Google Scholar 

  18. Neu HC, Chin N-X, Labthavikul P, Comparatve in vitro activity and β–lactamase stability of FR 17027, a new orallyactive cephalosporin. Antimicrobe Agents Chemother 1984: 26: 174–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wiedemann B, Luhmer E, Zühlsdorf MT. Microbiological evaluation of Cefpodoxime proxetil. Drugs 1991: 42 suppl. 3; 6–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wise R, Andrews JM, Ashby JP, et al. Ceftibuten: in–vitro activity against respiratory pathogens, β–lactamase stability and mechanism of action. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990: 26: 209–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Spratt GB, Resistance to antibiotics mediated by target alterations. Science 1994: 264: 388–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Novak E, Paxton LM, Tubbs HJ, et al. Orally administered cefpodoxime proxetil for treatment of uncomplicated gonococcal urethritis in males: a dose–response study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992: 36: 1764–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Westblom TU, Gudipati S, Midkiff BR, In vitro susceptibility of Helicobacter pylori to the new oral cephalosporins cefpodoxime, ceftibuten and cefixime. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1990: 9: 691–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Faulkner RD, Bohaychuk W, Desjardins RE, et al. Pharmocokinetics of cefixime after once–a–day and twice–a–day dosing to steady state. J Clin Pharmacol 1987: 27: 807–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Borin MT, Hughes GS, Patel RK, et al. Pharmacokinetic and tolerance studies of cefpodoxime after single–and multiple–dose oral administration of cefpodoxime proxetil. J Clin Pharmacol 1991: 31: 1137–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Koup JR, Dubach UC, Brandt R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cefetamet (Ro 15-8074) and cefetamet pivoxil (Ro 15-8075) after intravenous and oral doses in humans. Antimicrob Agenls Chemother 1988: 32: 573–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Barr WH, Lin C-C, Radwanski E, et al. The pharmacokinetics of ceftibuten in humans, Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1991: 14: 93–100

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sommers DK, Van Wyk M, Williams PEO, et al. Pharmacokinetics and tolerance of cefuroxime axetil in volunteers during repeated dosing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984: 25: 344–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Barbhaiya RH, Shukla UA, Gleason CR, et al. Phase I study of multiple–dose cefprozil and comparison with cefaclor. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990: 34: 1198–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Chu S-Y, Wilson DS, Guay DRP, et al. Clarithromycin pharmacokinetics in healthy young and elderly volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol 1992: 32: 1045–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Gonzalez MA, Uribe F, Moisen SD, et al. Multiple–dose phar macokinetics and safety of ciprofloucin in normal volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chernother 1984; 26: 741–4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Brogden RN, Campoli-Richards DM. Cefixime: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs 1989: 38: 524–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Fassbender M, Lode H, Schaberg T, et al. Pharmacokinetics of new oral cephalosporins, including a new carbacephem. Clin Infect Dis 1993; 16: 646–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Wise R. The pharmacokinetics of the oral cephalosporins: a review. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990: 26 Suppl. E: 13–20

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gehanno P, Andrews JM, Ichou F, et al. Concentrations of cefpodoxime in plasma and tonsillar tissue after a single oral dose of cefpodoxime proxetil. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990: 26 Suppl. E: 47–51

    Google Scholar 

  36. Couraud L, Andrews JM, Lecoeur H, et al. Concentrations of cefpodoxime in plasma and lung tissue after a single oral dose of cefpodoxime proxetil. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990: 26 Suppl. E; 35–40

    Google Scholar 

  37. Stone JW, Linong G, Andrews JM, et al. Cefixime in vitro activity, pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989: 23: 221–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Fujii R, Yoshioka H, Fujiita K, et al. Pharmacokinetic and clinical studies of cefdinir in the paediatric field: paediatric study group of cefdinir [abstract]. Jpn J Antibiot 1991; 44: 1168–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Pichichero ME, Margolis PA. A comparison of cephalosporins and penicillins in the treatment of group A beta–hemolytic streptococcal pharyngitis: a meta–analysis supporting the concept of microbial copathogenieity. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1991: 10: 275–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Howie VM, Owen MJ, Bacteriologic and clinical efficacy of cefixime compared with amoxicillin in acute otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1987; 6: 989–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Klein JO, Microbiologic efficacy of antibacterial drugs for acute otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1993: 12: 973–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Matthews BL, Kohutt RI, Edelstein DR, et al. Evaluation of cefixime in the treatment of bacterial maxillary sinusitis. South Med J 1993: 86: 329–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Edelstein DR, Avner SE, Chow JM, et al. Once a–day therapy for sinusitis: a comparison study of cefixime and amoxicilin. Laryngoscope 1993: 103: 33–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. De Abate CA, Perrotta RJ, Dennington ON et al. The efficacy and safety of once–daily ceftibuten compared with co–arnoxiclav in the treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis. J Chemother 1992: 4: 358–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Carenfelt C, Melen I, Ödkvist L, et al. Treatment of sinus empyema in adults: a coordinated Nordic multicenler trial of cefixime vs. cefaclor. Acta Otolaryngol 1990: 110: 128–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Chirurgi VA, Edelstein H, Oster SE, et al. Ceftibuten versus cefaclor for the trealment of bronchitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991: 28: 577–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Kammer RB, Ress R. Randomized comparative study of ceftibuten versus cefaclor in the treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infections. Diagn Microbiol lnfect Dis 1991: 14: 101–5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Zuck P, Rio Y, Ichou F. Efficacy and tolerance of cefpodoxirne proxetil compared with ceftriaxone in vulnerable patients with bronchopneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990: 26 Suppl. E: 71–7

    Google Scholar 

  49. Stein GE, Christensen S, Mummaw N. Treatment of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infection with ceftibuten. Infection 1991; 19: 124–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Asbach HW. Single dose oral adminidtration of cefixime 400mg in the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and gonorrhoea. Drugs 1991; 42 Suppl. 4: 10–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vieiralves LFA, Lucena R, Borges CH, et al. Comparative study of cefetamet pivoxil and cefuroxime axetil in complicated urinary tract infections. Drug Invest 1993; 6: 347–52

    Google Scholar 

  52. Tio TT, Sindhunata IR, Wagenvoort JHT, et al. Different doses of cefetamet pivoxil (Ro 15-8075) in the treatment of acute uncomplicated gonococcal urethritis in men. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990: 34: 674–553

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Stevens DL, Pien F, Drehobl M, Comparison of oral cefpodoxime: proxetil and cefaclor in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1993: 16: 123–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Tack KJ, Wilks NE, Semerdjian G. et al. Cefpodoxime proxetil in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. Drugs 1991: 42 Suppl 3: 51–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tally FP, Desjardins RE, McCarthy EF, et al. Safety profile of cefixime. Pedialr Infect Dis J 1981: 6: 976–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kenna MA, Bluestone CD, Fall P, Cefixime vs. cefaclor in the treament of acute atitis media in infants and children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1987: 6: 992–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Levenstein J, Summerfield PJF, Fourie S, et al. Comparison of cefixime and co–trimoxazole in acute uncomplicated urinary tract infection. S Afr Med J 1986: 70: 455–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Chachaty E, Depitre C, Mario N, et al. Presence of Clostridium difficile and antibiotic and βlactamase activities in feces of volunteers treated with oral cefixime, cefpodoxime proxetil or placebo. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 2009–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Landholt TF, Kotschwar TR. A pharmacoeconomic comparison of amoxicillin/clavulanate and cefpodoxime proxetil in the treatment of acute otitis media. Clin Ther 1994: 16: 327–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Guay DRP. Sequential antimicrobial therapy: a realistic approach to cost containment? Pharmacoeconomics 1993: 3: 341–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Parker SE, Davey PG. Pharmacoeconomics of intravenous drug administration. Pharmacoeconomics 1992: 1: 103–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Balfour JA, Faulds D. Oral ciprofloxacin: a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in the trealment of serious infections. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 3: 398–421

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Cousins DH, Lee M, Stanaway M. et al. Implementation and evaluation of a centralised IV additive service for antibiotics injections. Pharm J 1989; 242 Suppl.; HSI4–6

    Google Scholar 

  64. Atkinson HC, Chambers ST, McGinlay AM. Antibiotic therapy costs. N Z Med J 1989; 102: 409–11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Plumridge RJ. Cost comparison of intravenous antibiotic administration. Med J Aust 1990: 153: 516–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Allen B, Naismith NW, Manser AJ, et al. A campaign to improve the liming of conversion from intravenous to oral administration of antibiotics. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1992: 22: 434–9

    Google Scholar 

  67. Janknegt R, van der Meer JWM. Sequential therapy with intravenous and oral cephalosporins. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994; 33; 169–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Christchurch School of Medicine, and Department of Infectious Diseases, Canterbury Health, Christchurch Hospital, Private Bag, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Stephen T. Chambers

  2. Department of Microbiology, Canterbury Health Laboratories, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand

    David R. Murdoch

  3. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Canterbury Health, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Malcolm J. Pearce

Authors
  1. Stephen T. Chambers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David R. Murdoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Malcolm J. Pearce
    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

Chambers, S.T., Murdoch, D.R. & Pearce, M.J. Clinical and Economic Considerations in the Use of Third-Generation Oral Cephalosporins. Pharmacoeconomics 7, 416–427 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199507050-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199507050-00006

Keywords

Search

Navigation