Skip to main content

Cefpodoxime Proxetil

An Appraisal of its Use in Antibacterial Cost-Containment Programmes, as Stepdown and Abbreviated Therapy in Respiratory Tract Infections

PharmacoEconomics volume 10, pages 164–178 (1996)Cite this article

Summary

Cefpodoxime proxetil is an orally administered prodrug which is converted in vivo to the third generation cephalosporin cefpodoxime. Cefpodoxime has a similar spectrum of antibacterial activity to the parenteral cephalosporins ceftriaxone and cefotaxime and a long elimination half-life, which allows once- or twice-daily administration. Cefpodoxime proxetil has proven efficacy in the treat- ment of community-acquired pneumonia and upper respiratory tract, skin and soft tissue and urinary tract infections. It has been evaluated for use in cost-containment programmes, as stepdown (parenteral-to-oral conversion) therapy in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and as abbreviated therapy in upper respiratory tract infections.

Substituting oral for parenteral therapy can achieve considerable savings (in acquisition, delivery and labour costs). Moreover, oral administration has advantages for the patient in terms of comfort and mobility, avoids the hazards of parenteral delivery and may allow earlier discharge from hospital, or even allow home treatment from the outset in low-risk patients. As hospitalisation is usually the major cost component in treating serious infections, considerable savings can be made in this way.

Pharmacy-driven stepdown programmes in 2 US hospitals have achieved cost savings by targeting patients with community-acquired pneumonia for early conversion from intravenous ceftriaxone therapy to oral cefpodoxime proxetil. Costs were compared with those from a control group of patients who continued to receive intravenous ceftriaxone until physicians deemed that oral therapy (with various agents) was appropriate. In one study, duration of parenteral therapy in the cefpodoxime proxetil group was reduced from 6.18 to 3.82 days and duration of hospitalisation was reduced from 10.06 to 6.23 days (p < 0.02), with corresponding hospitalisation cost reductions of SUS7300 per patient. However, clinical trial data relating to the efficacy of cefpodoxime proxetil as stepdown therapy in patients initially requiring parenteral antibacterials are lacking.

Abbreviated (4- to 7-day) cephalosporin regimens appear to be as effective as traditional 10-day penicillin regimens in the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections. Short regimens may improve patient compliance and tolerability, thereby reducing the costs of adverse effects and treatment failures. Data from preliminary clinical studies suggest that a 5-day course of cefpodoxime proxetil is as effective as an 8-day course of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in treating either acute otitis media or sinusitis, and as effective as a 10-day course of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and more effective than a 10-day course of phenoxymethyl-penicillin in the treatment of pharyngotonsillitis. Cefpodoxime proxetil tended to be better tolerated and was associated with better compliance than penicillin-based regimens. Indeed, a pharmacoeconomic study showed that a 10-day regimen of cefpodoxime proxetil was associated with lower costs for treating adverse effects and treatment failures than a 10-day regimen of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the treatment of acute otitis media in children. A 5-day course of cefpodoxime proxetil had a lower cost per patient treated per month free of recurrence than a 10-day course of phenoxymethylpenicillin (non-generic) or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the treatment of recurrent pharyngotonsillitis.

Thus, evidence to date suggests that cefpodoxime proxetil has potential for use as stepdown therapy in community-acquired pneumonia and in abbreviated therapy courses in upper respiratory tract infections. These preliminary observations require confirmation in well designed studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

49,54 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

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

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kayser FH. In vitro activity of cefpodoxime in comparison with other oral b-lactam antibiotics. Infection 1994 Sep–Oct; 22: 370–375

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sader HS. Jones RN, Washington JA, et al. In vitro activity of cefpodoxime compared with other oral cephalosporins tested against 5556 recent clinical isolates from five medical centers. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1993 Aug–Sep; 17: 143–150

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones RN, Zurenko GE. Prediction of bacterial susceptibility to cefpodoxime by using the ceftriaxone minimum inhibitory concentration result. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1993 Nov–Dec; 17: 313–316

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwarck H, Wiese K. Efficacy and safety of cefpodoxime proxetil in patients with respiratory tract infections [poster]. 19th International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1995 Jul; Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  6. Quintiliani R, Cooper BW, Briceland LL. et al. Economic impact of streamlining antibiotic administration. Am J Med 1987 Apr 27; 82: 391–394

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Balfour JA. Faulds D. Oral ciprofloxacin. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in the treatment of serious infections. PharmacoEconomics 1993; 3 (5): 398–421

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chambers ST, Murdoch DR, Pearce MJ. Clinical and economic considerations in the use of third-generation oral cephalosporins. PharmacoEconomics 1995 May; 7: 416–427

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Parker SE, Davey PC Pharmacoeconomics of intravenous drug administration. PharmacoEconomics 1992; 1: 103–115

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Plumridge RJ. Cost comparison of intravenous antibiotic administration. Med J Aust 1990; 153: 516–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Clark CM, Bailie GR, Whitaker AM, et al. Parenteral drug delivery — value for money? Pharm J 1986; 236: 453–455

    Google Scholar 

  12. Green J A. Butler T, Todd WM. Randomized double-blind trial of the comparative efficacy and safety of cefpodoxime proxetil and cefaclor in the treatment of acute community-acquired pneumonia. Curr Ther Res 1994 Sep; 55: 1003–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Klein M. International SG. Multicenter trial of cefpodoxime proxetil vs. amoxicillin-clavulanate in acute lower respiratory tract infections in childhood. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995 Apr; 14 Suppl.: S19–S22

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Khan Z. An open multi-centre studv of cefpodoxime proxetil (Orelox) in empiric treatment of community-acquired pneumonia [poster]. 19th International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1995 Jul; Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zuck P, Rio Y. Ichou F. Efficacy and tolerance of cefpodoxime proxetil compared with ceftriaxone in vulnerable patients with bronchopneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990 Dec; 26 Suppl. E: 71–77

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vogel F. Transitional parenteral to oral therapy. Data presented at the 19th International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1995 Jul; Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hendrickson JR, North DS. Pharmacoeconomic benefit of antibiotic step-down therapy, converting patients from intravenous ceftriaxone to oral cefpodoxime proxetil. Ann Pharmacother 1995 Jun; 29: 561–565

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Destache CJ, Elsasser GN, Shinn BW. Assessment of pharmaceutical intervention in community-acquired pneumonia: intravenous ceftriaxone switching to oral cefpodoxime [abstract]. Pharmacotherapy 1995 May–Jun; 15: 377

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pichichero P. Explanations and therapies for penicillin failure in streptococcal pharyngitis. Clin Pediatr 1992; 31 (11): 642–649

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dajani A. Taubert K. Ferrieri P. et al. Treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis and prevention of rheumatic fever: a statement for health professionals. Pediatrics 1995; 4: 758–764

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pichichero M, 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 copathogenicity. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1991; 10: 275–281

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dajani AS. Pharyngitis/tonsillitis: European and United States experience with cefpodoxime proxetil. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995 Apr; 14 (4) Suppl.: 7–11

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schwartz R, Wientzen R, Pedaeira F, et al. Penicillin V for group A streptococcal pharyngotonsillitis. JAMA 1981; 246: 1790–1795

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gerber MA, Randolph MF, Chanatry J, et al. Five vs ten days of penicillin V therapy for streptococcal pharyngitis. Am J Dis Child 1987; 141: 224–227

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Brook I. Role of anaerobic beta-lactamase-producing bacteria in upper respiratory tract infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1987; 6: 310–316

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pichichero ME. Therapeutic considerations for management of otitis media, sinusitis, and tonsillopharyngitis. Pediatr Asthma Allergy Immunol 1992; 6 (3): 167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chaput de Saintonge DM, Levine DF, Temple Savage I, et al. Trial of three-day and ten-day courses of amoxycillin in otitis media. BMJ 1982; 284: 1078–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McLinn S. Double blind and open label studies of azithromycin in the management of acute otitis media in children: a review. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995; 14: S62–S66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hendrickse WA, Kumiesz H, Shelton S, et al. Five vs. ten days of therapy for acute otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1988; 7: 14–23

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Klein JO. Microbiologic efficacy of antibacterial drugs for acute otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1993; 12: 973–975

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Howie VM. Eradication of bacterial pathogens from middle ear infections. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 14 Suppl. 2: 209–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Carlin SA, Marchant CD, Shurin PA, et al. Host factors and early therapeutic response in acute otitis media. J Pediatr 1991; 118: 178–183

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Williams JW, Holleman DR, Samsa GP, et al. Three days therapy for acute sinusitis. JAMA 1995; 273: 1015–1021

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pichichero ME, Gooch WM, Rodriguez W, et al. Effective short-course treatment of acute group A ß-hemolytic streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis: ten days of penicillin V vs 5 days or 10 days of cefpodoxime therapy in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1994 Oct; 148: 1053–1060

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Portier H, Chavanet P, Waldner-Combernoux A, et al. Five versus ten days treatment of streptococcal pharyngotonsillitis: a randomized controlled trial comparing cefpodoxime proxetil and phenoxymethyl penicillin. Scand J Infect Dis 1994; 26 (1): 59–66

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Portier H, Chavanet P, Cohen R, et al. Five days cefpodoxime proxetil (RU51807) vs 10 days penicillin V for streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsillitis in children. 32nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Anaheim, 1992 [abstract no. 1674].

    Google Scholar 

  37. Portier H, Weber P, Gehanno P, et al. Cefpodoxime proxetil 5 days versus two other betalactam therapies 10 days [abstract no. 1230]. 6th International Congress for Infectious Diseases; 1994; Prague

    Google Scholar 

  38. Portier H, Chavanet P, Gouyon JB. Five day treatment of pharyngotonsillitis with cefpodoxime proxetil [(summary in 2 parts (part B)]. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990 Dec; 26 Suppl. E: 79–85

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Adam D. Five-day therapy with cefpodoxime versus ten-day treatment with cefaclor in infants with acute otitis media. Infection 1995; 23 (6): 398–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Boulesteix J, Dubreuil C, Moutol M, et al. Efficacy and tolerance of 5-day cefpodoxime proxetil versus 8-day cefixime for acute otitis media in children [abstract no. 848]. 18th International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1993; Stockholm.

  41. Cohen R. Shortened therapies in AOM [abstract]. Can J Infect Dis 1995 Jul; 6 Suppl. C: 20C

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fernandez MacLoughlin G, Gomez Barreto D, De la Torre C, et al. Cefpodoxime proxetil suspension compared with cefaclor suspension for treatment of acute otitis media in paediatric patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 565–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Spencer R, Hannington J, Fraser S, et al. UK Study Group in General Practice. Cefpodoxime proxetil vs co-amoxiclav in the treatment of acute infections of the ear, nose and throat in children—a multicentre randomized study [abstract no. 851]. 18th International Congress of Qiernotherapy; 1993; Stockholm, 264.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Khong TK. Shortened therapies in sinusitis. Data presented at the 19th International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1995 Jul; Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sabater F, Larrosa F, Guirao M, et al. Cefpodoxime proxetil (5 days) vs amoxycillin/clavulanic acid (8 days) in the treatment of acute maxillo-ethmoidal sinusitis in adult outpatients. 19th International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1995 Jul; Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  46. Marchant CD, Carlin SA, Johnson CE, et al. Measuring the comparative efficacy of antibacterial agents for acute otitis media: the ‘Pollyanna phenomenon’. J Pediatr 1992; 120: 72–77

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Pelc A, Portier H, Gehanno P, et al. Cost saving of five-day therapy with cefpodoxime proxetil versus standard 10-day therapy with two other ß-lactam antibiotics for the treatment of recurrent pharyngotonsillitis in adults: a prospective general practice study. PharmacoEconomics 1996; 10 (3) (In press)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Landholt TF, Kotschwar TR. A pharmacoeconomic comparison of amoxicillin/clavulanate and cefpodoxime proxetil in the treatment of acute otitis media. Clin Ther 1994 Mar–Apr; 16: 327–333 (discussion 271-2)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Marrie TJ. Community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 1993; 18: 501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Chan R, Hemeryck L, O’Regan M. Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for community acquired lower respiratory tract infection in a general hospital: open, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1995 May 27; 310: 1360–1362

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Dagan R, Syrogiannopoulos G, Ashkenazi S, et al. Parenteral-oral switch in the management of paediatric pneumonia. Drugs 1994; 47 Suppl. 3: 43–51

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Shalit I, Dagan R, Engelhard D. Cefuroxime efficacy in pneumonia: sequential short-course IV/oral suspension therapy. Isr J Med Sci 1994 Sep; 30: 684–689

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Jones RN. In vitro antibacterial activity of oral cephalosporins. A selective and comparative review. Clin Drug Invest 1995; 9 Suppl. 3: 22–30

    Google Scholar 

  54. Janknegt R, van der Meer JWM. Sequential therapy with intravenous and oral cephalosporins. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994 Jan; 33: 169–177

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Fine MJ, Smith DN, Singer DE. Epidemiological features and chemotherapy of community-acquired respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 26 Suppl. E: 53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Eisen SA, Miller DK, Woodward DS, et al. The effect of prescribed daily dose frequency on patient medication compliance. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 1881–1884

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Pullar T, Birtwell AJ, Wiles PG, et al. Use of a pharmacologic indicator to compare compliance with tablets prescribed to be taken once, twice, or three times daily. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1988; 44: 540–545

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Adis International Limited, 41 Centorian Drive, Private Bag 65901, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, New Zealand

    Julia A. Balfour & Paul Benfield

Authors
  1. Julia A. Balfour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Benfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Various sections of the manuscript reviewed by: S. Chambers, Department of Infectious Diseases, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand; J. Cooke, Department of Pharmacy, South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust, Withington Hospital, Manchester, England; A. Dajani, Division of Infectious Diseases, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan, USA; C.J. Destache, Creighton University School of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions, Omaha, Nebraska, USA; R.N. Jones, Department of Pathology, Medical Microbiology Division, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA; J. Kumazawa, Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan; M. Pichichero, Departments of Microbiology and Immunology, Pediatrics and Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA; H. Portier, Hopital Universitaire Dijon, Dijon, France; F. Vogel, Kliniken des Main-Taunus-Kreises, Hofheim am Taunus, Germany.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Balfour, J.A., Benfield, P. Cefpodoxime Proxetil. Pharmacoeconomics 10, 164–178 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199610020-00008

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199610020-00008

Keywords

  • Acute Otitis Medium
  • Cefaclor
  • Cefixime
  • Cefpodoxime
  • Streptococcal Pharyngitis