Fabrication, physical characterizations and in vitro antibacterial activity of cefadroxil-loaded chitosan/poly(vinyl alcohol) nanofibers against Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates.

Particular attention is devoting to the design of electrospun nanofibers (NFs) as new drug delivery nanosystems to overcome bacterial resistance and toxicological issues. Their advantages include high encapsulation efficiency, great drug-loading capacity, easiness in production, cost-effectiveness, and controlled targeted drug delivery. We aim to characterize electrospun chitosan (CS)/poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) NFs (CPNFs) loaded with cefadroxil monohydrate (CFX), a broad spectrum antibiotic. The biodegradable and biocompatible carrier system was greenly fabricated by electrospinning at various CS/PVA ratios. CPNFs were characterized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), and UV-spectrometry. Their potential toxicity was evaluated in human epidermal keratinocytes by 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazole-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. Their antibacterial activity was tested by agar well diffusion method and MTT assay against clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, a Gram-positive bacterium involved in serious skin infections. The thermostable CFX-loaded CPNFs at optimized 30:70 ratio revealed a burst and sustained release profile that occurred predominantly by diffusion following non-Fickian (anomalous) transport mechanism, as well as a more potent and safe antibacterial than free CFX. Thus, electrospun CFX-loaded CPNFs could be a new promising transdermal drug delivery system to activate the wound healing process and cost-effectively treat S. aureus-induced (resistant) skin infections.

Transient Fanconi Syndrome After Treatment with Firocoxib, Cefadroxil, Tramadol, and Famotidine in a Maltese.

Fanconi syndrome is a renal proximal tubulopathy characterized by excessive urinary loss of glucose, amino acids, several electrolytes, and bicarbonate. Here, we report the case of transient Fanconi syndrome in a dog following administration of firocoxib, cefadroxil, tramadol, and famotidine. A 10 mo old Maltese was presented with lethargy, anorexia, vomiting, and weight loss. Transient Fanconi syndrome without azotemia was associated with firocoxib, cefadroxil, tramadol, and famotidine treatment. The dog received supportive care including IV fluids, gastroprotectants, and oral nutritional supplements. Two months after initial diagnosis and treatment, the dog showed complete resolution of glucosuria and aminoaciduria. The unique features of Fanconi syndrome in this case emphasize the potential renal tubular toxicity of this widely used multiple-drug combination.

A severe laryngeal angioedema reaction from cefadroxil in a patient with no known allergies to penicillins.

We report a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction to cefadroxil in a 60-year old female with no previous history of allergies to penicillins. Cefadroxil is a first-generation cephalosporin and anaphylactic reactions to it in patients with no previous history of penicillin allergy are very rare. Since cefadroxil is a commonly prescribed antibiotic for both adults and children in the Caribbean, an appropriate level of caution should be exercised in its use even with no reported history of previous allergies to the penicillin class of medications.

Efficacy and safety of cefovecin in treating bacterial folliculitis, abscesses, or infected wounds in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of administration of cefovecin, compared with cefadroxil, for treatment of naturally occurring secondary superficial pyoderma, abscesses, and infected wounds in dogs. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, positive-controlled clinical trial. ANIMALS: 235 client-owned dogs. PROCEDURES: Dogs with clinical signs of skin infection confirmed via bacteriologic culture were randomly allocated to receive a single SC injection of cefovecin (8 mg/kg [3.6 mg/lb]) followed by placebo administered PO twice daily for 14 days or cefadroxil (22 mg/kg [10 mg/lb]) administered PO twice daily for 14 days following a placebo injection. Two 14-day treatment courses were permitted. Treatment success was defined as reduction of clinical signs to mild or absent at the final assessment. RESULTS: Clinical efficacy achieved with cefovecin in dogs was equivalent to that observed with cefadroxil. At the final assessment, 14 days following the completion of treatment (on day 28 or 42), 92.4% (109/118) of the cefovecin group and 92.3% (108/117) of the cefadroxil group were treatment successes. There were no serious adverse events or deaths related to treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A single cefovecin injection (8 mg/kg) administered SC, which could be repeated once after 14 days, was safe and effective against naturally occurring skin infections in dogs and as effective as cefadroxil administered PO twice daily for 14 or 28 days.

Avaliação de diferentes cronogramas de coletas de amostras biológicas em estudos de bioequivalência e análise da influência de teor de fármaco sobre os resultados destes estudos / Evaluation of the effects on different doses and sampling schedules on the assessment of bioequivalence

Os estudos de bioequivalência são realizados em humanos, por meio da administração dos medicamentos em estudo pela mesma via extravascular, sob condições experimentais padronizadas, seguida pela determinação das concentrações plasmáticas do fármaco em função do tempo. Nestes estudos considera-se que curvas estatisticamente semelhantes de decaimento sanguíneo de fármacos produzem o mesmo resultado em termos de eficácia e segurança. A partir das curvas de concentração em função do tempo obtidas, determinam-se os parâmetros farmacocinéticos Cmax, tmax e ASC. A bioequivalência entre dois produtos é estabelecida por meio do IC 90%, que deve estar entre 80 a 125% para os parâmetros farmacocinéticos Cmax e ASC. O cronograma de coleta de amostras biológicas é um dos aspectos mais críticos no planejamento de estudos de bioequivalência, pois este afeta diretamente a determinação dos parâmetros farmacocinéticos utilizados na avaliação da bioequivalência. Outro aspecto importante relacionado a este tipo de estudo é a diferença de teor entre os produtos a serem submetidos ao estudo de bioequivalência, que segundo a legislação brasileira vigente, deve ser menor ou igual a 5%. Neste trabalho foram avaliados diferentes cronogramas de coleta de amostras sangue, avaliando-se o impacto destes no resultado final de um estudo de bioequivalência e, além disso, a influência da diferença de teor de fármaco entre dois produtos que levaria à bioinequivalência também foi investigada. Para tanto simulações matemáticas e um estudo in vivo foram conduzidos. O fármaco modelo escolhido foi a cefadroxila, por apresentar características farmacocinéticas e farmacodinâmicas ideais. O programa Microsoft Office Excel 2003 foi utilizado para simular as concentrações plasmáticas e determinar o IC 90%. As simulações foram feitas por meio de dois modelos: modelo baseado em máximos e mínimos de parâmetros farmacocinéticos, e modelo baseado em coeficientes de variação intra e inter-individuais do fármaco. Dez diferentes doses, entre -10% a 20% da dose referência, e 6 cronogramas de coleta foram avaliados. O estudo in vivo foi realizado com quatro doses diferentes de cefadroxila. A bioequivalência entre as doses e em diferentes cronogramas de coleta foi avaliada em 24 voluntários sadios do sexo masculino. Os voluntários receberam as quatro doses do estudo em desenho cruzado, em quatro períodos e quatro seqüências, com washout de 7 dias entre as doses. As concentrações plasmáticas de cefadroxila, até 8 horas após a administração, foram determinadas por cromatografia líquida de alta eficiência com detecção DAD. Os parâmetros farmacocinéticos tmax, Cmax e AUC0-t foram determinados nas diferentes doses e cronogramas de coleta, sendo que o critério para estabelecer-se a bioequivalência foi baseada nos resultados do IC 90% dos parâmetros farmacocinéticos Cmax e AUC0-t. Os resultados obtidos nas simulações mostraram boa correlação com os dados reais obtidos a partir de estudos in vivo. As simulações baseadas em coeficientes de variação intra e inter-individuais descreveram melhor os resultados observados no estudo in vivo. De acordo com os resultados obtidos no estudo in vivo pode-se concluir que cronogramas de coletas com menos amostras são tão eficientes quanto cronogramas de coletas com mais amostras, desde que o tempo de tmax esteja incluído. Em relação ao teor de fármaco, concluiu-se que dois produtos com diferença de teor menor ou igual a 11% ainda são bioequivalentes e que diferença maior ou igual a 14% resultam em bioinequivalência. Observou-se ainda que o parâmetro farmacocinético ASC0-t é mais sensível que Cmax para detectar diferenças

Bioequivalence studies are designed to compare the in vivo performance of different formulations of the same drug or different drug products by a randomized crossover study. Pharmacokinetic parameters are obtained from the drug concentration-time profile in blood, serum, or plasma. The most frequently used pharmacokinetic parameters are area under the plasma or blood concentration-time curve (AUC), maximum concentration (Cmax) and time to achieve maximum concentration (tmax). Bioequivalence is concluded if the average bioavailability of the test formulation is within (80%, 125%) that of the reference formulation, with a certain assurance, that is, an equivalence criterion of 80% to 125% for assessment of bioequivalence based on the ratio of average bioavailability is employed. The logarithmic transformation is used for AUC and Cmax. Accuracy in measuring pharmacokinetics parameters directly affects accuracy of bioequivalence tests. Since the number of blood samples per patient is limited, sampling points should be chosen such that the time concentration profile is adequately defined so as to allow the calculation of relevant parameters. According to guidelines proposed by the National Agency of Sanitary Vigilance of Brazil (ANVISA), bioequivalence studies can be conducted only if the difference in drug content between the reference and test product is less than or equal to 5%. The goals of this study are to evaluate the influence of differences in amount of active moiety present in the formulation and possibility of reducing the number of sampling points in bioequivalence studies and to discuss the impact of these parameters in bioequivalence conclusions. For these approaches, simulations and an in vivo study were done. The drug selected was cefadroxil. Cefadroxil presents ideal pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics characteristics for this kind of study, such as high bioavailability, low intra and intersubject variability, short elimination rate and wide therapeutic range. Microsoft Office Excel 2003 software was used to simulate drug concentration-time profiles for different doses and several sampling schedules, and to determine 90% confidence interval. Simulations were done by two models: a) based on assumed maximum and minimum pharmacokinetic parameters values; b) based on assumed intra and intersubject variability. Ten different doses, ranging from -10% to 20% of the reference dose, and six sampling schedules were evaluated. The in vivo study was performed with four different cefadroxil doses. Their relative bioavailability were evaluated in 24 healthy volunteers who received a single oral dose of each preparation. An open, randomized clinical trial designed as four-periods and four sequences crossover with 7-days washout between doses was employed. Plasma samples for assessments of their cefadroxil concentration by HPLC-DAD were obtained over 8 h after administration. Pharmacokinetics parameters tmax, Cmax and AUC0-t were evaluated using different doses and sampling schedules. For the purpose of bioequivalence analysis Cmax and AUC0-t were considered. For each schedule, to claim bioequivalence in average bioavailability, a 90% confidence interval was constructed for ratio of average between test and reference products and compared with (80%, 125%) limits. If the constructed confidence interval falls within the limits, then the two formulations are considered bioequivalent. The results obtained by simulate time-concentration profiles, showed good correlation with real data. Comparing the results obtained through in vivo study and the two simulations models, the simulations based in intra and intersubject variability was more predictive. In conclusion, no significant differences were found between sampling schedules evaluated, since the sampling time around tmax were maintained in sampling schedules. Bioinequivalence was observed when the difference between cefadroxil doses was higher than 14%. The parameter AUC0-t was more sensitive than Cmax to detect differences

Linezolid for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in children.

BACKGROUND: Infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are becoming increasingly prevalent. Linezolid is effective and well-tolerated in the treatment of adults with MRSA infections. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of iv/oral linezolid in children with MRSA infections. METHODS: Data were obtained from two independent clinical trials. In an outpatient trial children (5 to 17 years of age) with uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs) were treated with linezolid or cefadroxil. In an inpatient trial hospitalized children (0 to 11 years of age) with pneumonia, bacteremia or complicated SSSI caused by resistant Gram-positive pathogens were administered iv linezolid with the option to switch to oral suspension (patients >90 days of age) or iv vancomycin. A subset of patients with MRSA infections from the two clinical trials is analyzed herein. RESULTS: In the outpatient trial children with skin infections caused by MRSA were treated with linezolid (15 patients) and cefadroxil (10 patients). In the microbiologically evaluable population, the clinical cure rate was 92.3% in the linezolid group and 85.7% in the cefadroxil group (P = 0.64). The pathogen eradication rate for MRSA was 92.3 and 85.7% in the linezolid and cefadroxil groups, respectively (P = 0.64). There were very few adverse events or drug-related adverse events and no serious adverse events in the outpatient trial. In the inpatient trial 20 children treated with linezolid and 14 treated with vancomycin had infections caused by MRSA. In the microbiologically evaluable population, the clinical cure rate was 94.1% in the linezolid group and 90.0% in the vancomycin group (P = 0.69). Pathogen eradication rates were 88.2 and 90.0% for the linezolid and vancomycin groups, respectively (P = 0.89). Susceptibility patterns of the MRSA isolates showed distinct patterns between the outpatient and inpatient trials. In the inpatient trial fewer patients in the linezolid group had drug-related adverse events than did those in the vancomycin group (20% vs. 43%; P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous/oral linezolid is effective and well-tolerated in children with MRSA infections.

Safety and tolerability of linezolid in children.

BACKGROUND: Linezolid, an oxazolidinone, is effective in the treatment of adults and children with community-acquired and nosocomial pneumonia and uncomplicated and complicated skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs), including infections caused by Gram-positive resistant pathogens. Because of the increasing use of linezolid, it is important to review the common adverse events (AEs) associated with its use in children with the use of data from clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: The safety and tolerability of linezolid in pediatric patients with Gram-positive infections were determined in four pediatric clinical studies. Study I included pediatric patients with community-acquired pneumonia; Study II included otitis media; Study III included SSSIs; and Study IV included complicated SSSIs, nosocomial pneumonia and bacteremia. METHODS: Studies I and II had no comparator arm. Study III was randomized and compared linezolid with cefadroxil. Study IV also was randomized and compared linezolid with vancomycin. Patients <12 years of age received linezolid 10 mg/kg; patients age 12 years and older received 600 mg (intravenous/oral). Dosing frequency (two to three times daily) varied depending on age and clinical diagnosis. The primary safety endpoints were AEs, drug-related AEs, serious AEs and selected laboratory tests. RESULTS: In the 4 studies 958 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. In the linezolid vs. cefadroxil study (Study III), the most common AEs in patients treated with linezolid were diarrhea (7.8%), headache (6.5%) and upper respiratory tract infection (3.7%). In the linezolid vs. vancomycin study (Study IV), the most common AEs in the linezolid group were fever (14.1%), diarrhea (10.8%) and vomiting (9.4%). The most common drug-related AEs for linezolid in all 4 studies were diarrhea, vomiting, loose stools and nausea. None of these common AEs or drug-related AEs occurred more frequently in patients treated with linezolid than in those in the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid was safe and well-tolerated in pediatric patients with community-acquired pneumonia, otitis media, SSSIs and infections caused by Gram-positive resistant pathogens.

Comparison of azithromycin and cefadroxil for the treatment of uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections.

In this multicenter, investigator-blind trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of azithromycin and cefadroxil for the treatment of uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs). A total of 296 patients were randomized to receive either azithromycin (500 mg on day 1, followed by 250 mg once a day on days 2 to 5) or cefadroxil (500 mg twice a day for 10 days). Outpatients, ranging in age from 18 to 75 years, with acute uncomplicated SSSIs were enrolled in the study. Clinical and bacteriologic response was assessed between days 10 and 13 (primary end point) and between days 28 and 32. In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, clinical success rates assessed between days 10 and 13 were 97% (111/114) for azithromycin and 96% (101/105) for cefadroxil (P = .717). For azithromycin and cefadroxil, corresponding rates of bacteriologic eradication for Staphylococcus aureus were 94% (64/68) and 86% (60/70), respectively, and for Streptococcus pyogenes, 80% (4/5) and 100% (6/6), respectively. Clinical success rates assessed between days 28 and 32 were 100% (82/82) for azithromycin compared with 90% (75/83) for cefadroxil (P = .007). Corresponding rates of eradication for S aureus were 100% (59/59) versus 89% (56/63), respectively; and for S pyogenes, 100% (4/4) versus 83% (5/6), respectively. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the 2 treatment groups. However, 5 of the 139 patients (4%) in the cefadroxil group discontinued therapy because of treatment-related adverse events compared with none of the 152 patients in the azithromycin group (P = .02). Five-day therapy with azithromycin was as effective as 10-day therapy with cefadroxil for treating uncomplicated SSSIs.

[Long-term Cefadroxil prophylaxis in children with recurrent urinary tract infections]. / Vaiku pasikartojancios slapimo organu infekcijos ilgalaikis profilaktinis gydymas cefadroksiliu.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose, long-term cefadroxil prophylaxis in preventing recurrent urinary tract infections in children. A prospective, randomized trial in 33 children (32 female, 1 male) aged 2-14 years (mean 8.1+/-2.8) was conducted. Children with recurrent urinary tract infections were commenced to six-month prophylaxis with cefadroxil at the dosage of 12.5-15.0 mg/kg at bedtime administered every night (group I, n=15) or alternate night (group II, n=18). Escherichia coli was the most frequently isolated agent (90.9%), followed by Proteus mirabilis (3.0%) and Klebsiella oxytoca (3.0%) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (3.0%). Cefadroxil prophylaxis was effective in 80% of patients in group I and in 78% patients in group II. Reinfection occurred in 3/15 (20%) patients in-group I and in 4/18 (22.2%) patients in-group II (odds ratio--1.14; 95% confidence interval--0.16-8.3). The difference of reinfection rate between the groups was not significant (p=0.88). The rate of day- and night-time wetting in both groups before prophylaxis of urinary tract infections was high. It decreased significantly at the end of prophylactic treatment with cefadroxil (from 42.4% to 9.1% and from 39.4% to 6.1% respectively). Mild adverse reaction (nausea) was observed in 1/33 patient. In conclusion our study shows that cefadroxil is an effective, well-tolerated and safe agent in the urinary tract infections prophylaxis. Prophylaxis of recurrent urinary tract infections in children with cefadroxil on alternate night regimen might reduce the cost of the treatment.

Occupational asthma induced by cephalosporins.

A 20-yr-old pharmaceutical worker who developed attacks of shortness of breath and wheezing 9 months after beginning work on a process in which cefadroxil powder was bottled or encapsulated will be described. Skin test with cefaxodril was negative. Baseline spirometry and methacholine inhalation test were normal. A controlled bronchial challenge test was carried out in a closed-circuit system with assessment of respirable dust concentration. Exposure to cefadroxil powder at a mean concentration of 10 mg x m(-3) for 10 min elicited an isolated immediate asthmatic response, but no response was observed to control challenge with lactose. Single-blind oral challenge test with amoxicillin up to 500 mg was well tolerated, whereas the oral challenge with cephalexin (25 mg) elicited an immediate asthmatic response. This patient had developed occupational asthma caused by inhalation of cefadroxil as confirmed by specific inhalation test. Since she tolerated oral amoxicillin, a synthetic penicillin with the side-chain identical to that of cefadroxil, it seems that she may be sensitized to the dihydrothiazine ring of cephalosporins.

[Drug induced hemolytic anemia associated with agranulocytosis].

A 27-year-old female was admitted to a hospital because of severe anemia (hemoglobin 4.9 g/dl) after taking PL (a drug for common cold consisted of Salicylamide, Acetaminophen, Caffeine and Promethazine methylene di-salicylate) and Cefadroxil (an oral antibiotic) for ten days. History and laboratory data leaded to a diagnosis of drug induced hemolytic anemia. 6 units of concentrated red blood cells were transfused and the suspected drugs were discontinued immediately. Though resolution of anemia and no further hemolysis were observed, progressive leukocytopenia developed since four days after the admission. Bone marrow aspiration revealed marked decrease of granulocytic series. The patient was transferred to our hospital and was isolated under laminar air-flow to prevent her from bacterial and fungal infections. She was treated with prednisolone and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor. She recovered from leukocytopenia in two weeks without suffering from any life-threatening infection. We extensively analyzed the suspected drugs and mechanism of hemolysis and granulocytopenia. Cefadroxil is turned out to be contributed to hemolysis by an immune complex mechanism. Cefadroxil and Salicylamide were suggested to be involved in granulocytopenia by the induction of antibodies against the leukocytes to which these drugs were bound. Thus Cefadroxil was regarded as a causative drug of both hemolysis and granulocytopenia. This case is of interest for analyzing drug-induced blood abnormality because it is very rare that two lineage of blood were injured by one drug at the same time as far as we know.

Clinical cross-reactivity between amoxicillin and cephadroxil in patients allergic to amoxicillin and with good tolerance of penicillin.

In recent years, patients allergic to amoxicillin (AX) but with good tolerance of penicillin G (PG) have been described. It has been suggested that the epitope implicated in this type of sensitization might be located on the side-chain of the AX molecule. Thus, cross-reactivity between AX and cephadroxil (CEPH), a cephalosporin which shares an identical side-chain with AX, is suspected. This study aimed to demonstrate clinical cross-reactivity between AX and CEPH in patients allergic to AX and showing good tolerance of PG. In 76 of 576 subjects with suspected allergic reaction to PG and/or AX, the diagnosis of allergy was confirmed. All of these had specific IgE to PG, penicillin V, or AX, and/or positive skin tests to PPL (penicilloyl-polylysine), or MDM (minor determinant mixture), or PG, or AX, and/or positive challenge tests with PG and/or AX. Sixteen subjects (21%) allergic to AX (11 with positive skin test and five with positive challenge test to AX) and good tolerance of PG (all with negative parenteral challenge test) were selected. These 16 patients were subsequently challenged with CEPH (up to 500 mg). Fourteen patients tolerated CEPH, and two (12%) had an immediate allergic reaction. Our study indicates that allergy to the side-chain of aminopenicillins seems to have little clinical relevance in patients with allergic reactions to aminopenicillins but with good tolerance of PG, as 88% of patients with this clinical characteristic tolerate a cephalosporin which shares an identical side-chain. It seems that IgE from most of these patients recognizes an epitope different from the side-chain and the beta-lactam ring.

Application of International Consensus Meeting Criteria for classifying drug-induced liver disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To report a patient with 2 consecutive reversible drug-induced liver disorders and the application of International Consensus Meeting Criteria for the screening and diagnosis of drug-induced liver disorders. CASE SUMMARY: An 88-year-old man in a chronic care institution developed abdominal discomfort and jaundice after finishing a 10-day course of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole therapy for a urinary tract infection (UTI). The jaundice and the symptoms resolved spontaneously and the final diagnosis was symptomatic drug-induced liver injury, mixed type. After 1 month, the same patient received a course of cefadroxil therapy for another UTI. He developed an asymptomatic drug-induced liver injury, mixed type. Six months later, the patient received oral penicillin therapy and then ciprofloxacin, with no change in his liver function test results. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, there are only a few other reports in the literature of a drug-induced liver injury with cefadroxil therapy; more cases are reported with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole than with cefadroxil. The criteria of an International Consensus Meeting were helpful to evaluate both incidences of liver injury in this patient with the aim of establishing the diagnosis and causality assessment. Additionally, the criteria were used to show that the patient had 2 separate liver injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Screening and diagnosis of drug-induced liver disorders depend on careful history taking and 5 specific biochemical liver tests. The evolution of the liver disorder induced by cefadroxil therapy probably was interrupted because of its early detection. Appropriate screening was done with the subsequent administration of new potentially hepatotoxic drugs.

Comparative safety and efficacy of clarithromycin and cefadroxil suspensions in the treatment of mild to moderate skin and skin structure infections in children.

A prospective, randomized, single (investigator) blind multicenter study was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of clarithromycin and cefadroxil oral suspensions in the treatment of mild to moderate skin and skin structure infections in children. Male and female patients ages 6 months to 12 years were enrolled at 24 study centers in the United States. Patients had signs and symptoms consistent with mild to moderate skin or skin structure infections judged suitable for oral antimicrobial therapy. Clarithromycin oral suspension was given to 118 children in a dose of 7.5 mg/kg (maximum of 500 mg) twice daily; cefadroxil oral suspension was given to 113 children in a dose of 15 mg/kg (maximum of 1000 mg) twice daily. Among clinically evaluable patients clinical success rates (cure plus improvement) were 96% (71 of 74) for clarithromycin and 98% (83 of 85) for cefadroxil (P = 0.664). Bacteriologic cure rates in evaluable clarithromycin and cefadroxil patients were 96% (72 of 75) and 99% (89 of 90), respectively (P = 0.331). Pathogen eradication rates based on 204 evaluable pathogens were 97% in the clarithromycin group and 99% in the cefadroxil group (P = 0.326). Adverse events were mild or moderate and were reported in 25% of clarithromycin and 35% of cefadroxil patients (P = 0.085). In both groups adverse events involved primarily the digestive tract. No significant laboratory changes were noted. Clarithromycin oral suspension appears to be a safe and effective alternative to cefadroxil for the treatment of pediatric skin and skin structure infections.

Cephadroxil promotes vaginal colonization with Escherichia coli.

The aim of this study was to examine whether a vaginal Escherichia coli colonization, mimicking the one seen in UTI-prone females, could be induced by local cephadroxil administration. When five adult cynomolgus monkeys were given a vaginal flush with a P-fimbriated E. coli strain, none became persistently colonized. When such colonization attempts were preceded by cephadroxil administration a persistent colonization occurred in 9/10 experiments. Cephadroxil also promoted a spread of fecal E. coli strains to the vagina. Reduction of the anaerobic vaginal flora can explain the breakdown of the colonization resistance. Clinical observations suggest that accumulation of E. coli around the urethral orifice increases the risk of UTI. Therefore antibiotics which promote such colonization may increase the risk for UTI in susceptible patients. From this point of view antibiotics such as cephadroxil may be less suitable for treatment of UTI-susceptible patients.

Clarithromycin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections: two multicenter clinical studies. Clarithromycin Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Clarithromycin is a new macrolide analog of erythromycin with activity against a number of dermatologic pathogens. METHODS: The efficacy and safety of clarithromycin, 250 mg bid, were compared with those of reference drugs, cefadroxil and erythromycin, in two multicenter studies: (1) a randomized, double-blind 45-center study, in which clarithromycin or cefadroxil 500 mg bid was given for 5-14 days; and (2) a single-blind 31-center study, in which clarithromycin or erythromycin, 250 mg qid, was given for < or = 14 days. RESULTS: In the first study, efficacy and safety were evaluated in 299 and 538 patients, respectively. In the second study, the numbers were 141 and 261 patients, respectively. Overall, clarithromycin was as effective and safe as cefadroxil and erythromycin. CONCLUSIONS: Clarithromycin provides an alternative therapy to cefadroxil and erythromycin for skin and skin structure infections, especially in beta-lactam allergic patients.