RESUMO
Cephalexin is a first-generation ß-lactam antibiotic used in adults and pediatrics to treat various streptococcal and staphylococcal infections. This review aims to summarize and evaluate all the pharmacokinetic (PK) data on cephalexin by screening out all pertinent studies in human beings following the per oral (PO) route. By employing different online search engines such as Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane Central, and Science Direct, 23 studies were retrieved, among which nine were in healthy subjects, five in diseased ones, and the remaining were drug-drug, drug-food, and bioequivalence-related. These studies were included only based on the presence of plasma concentration-time profiles or PK parameters, i.e., maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), half-life (t1/2) area under the curve from time 0-infinity (AUC0-∞), and clearance (CL/F). A dose-proportional increase in AUC0-∞ and Cmax can be portrayed in different studies conducted in the healthy population. In comparison to cefaclor, Cmax was recorded to be 0.5 folds higher for cephalexin in the case of renal impairment. An increase in AUC0-∞ was seen in cephalexin on administration with probenecid, i.e., 117 µg.h/mL vs. 68.1 µg.h/mL. Moreover, drug-drug interactions with omeprazole, ranitidine, zinc sulfate, and drug-food interactions for cephalexin and other cephalosporins have also been depicted in different studies with significant changes in all PK parameters. This current review has reported all accessible studies containing PK variables in healthy and diseased populations (renal, dental, and osteoarticular infections, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis) that may be favorable for health practitioners in optimizing doses among the latter.
RESUMO
Background: The aim of the present study was to understand hospital pharmacists' views and practices regarding generic substitution and therapeutic interchange. Method: This was a qualitative study involving pharmacists from three Western Saudi governorates: Taif, Makkah, and Jeddah. It included respondents from the Ministry of Health (MoH), military and private hospitals. Pharmacists were selected using a convenient sampling technique and data were collected using a structured face-to-face interview. Results: Fifty-seven pharmacists agreed to participate in this study. In MoH and private hospitals, generic substitution is a pharmacist-initiated act, while therapeutic interchange requires physician approval. Medication unavailability, side effects, patient characteristics, outcomes, and economic status justified most substitution decisions. In military hospitals, both types of substitutions are controlled by an auto-switch policy and physicians should be informed. In all hospitals, there are policies regulating substitution. Medications eligible for interchange mentioned by pharmacists from different hospitals were comparable to some extent. Pharmacists from the private sector considered substitution a supportive economic measure for both hospitals and patients. Most pharmacists highlighted that patient convenience and physician approval are the most challenging situations in substitution practice. Conclusions: An enhanced understanding of substitution and knowledge about medications included in the hospital formulary will be valuable support to the implementation of substitution practice which responds to the patients' needs to improve their outcomes.