Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Cefpodoxime”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

Cefpodoxime-proxetil hydrolysis and food effects in the intestinal lumen before absorption: in vitro comparison of rabbit and human material.

The luminal and mucosal deesterification of the prodrug ester cefpodoxime-proxetil was studied in human duodenal washings in vitro. Enzymatic hydrolysis of the ester, releasing the active third generation cephalosporin, was observed in luminal washing in the same way as it had previously been observed in the rabbit. Eserine and PMSF and HgCl(2) were potent inhibitors of cefpodoxime-proxetil hydrolysis in luminal washing, suggesting the participation of a cholinesterase in the hydrolysis of cefpodoxime-proxetil. These results are in agreement with our previous findings performed in the rabbit. Moreover, cefpodoxime-proxetil directly decreases the acetylcholinesterase activity when tested by a specific enzymatic method. These observations support the hypothesis that the partial oral bioavailability of cefpodoxime-proxetil results from hydrolysis by luminal cholinesterases. In vitro experiments run with rabbit duodenal washing with food components were compared with the pharmacokinetics of cefpodoxime-proxetil in humans. Amino acids, trace elements and vitamins were potent inhibitors for cefpodoxime-proxetil hydrolysis in duodenal washings. Otherwise, lipids (LTC and mixed LCT/MCT) did not interact. In the human, cefpodoxime-proxetil bioavailability is significantly enhanced when tablets are administered with food. The correlation found between animal results and human results in vitro for prospective investigation of a new prodrug ester could be very useful. An in vitro hydrolysis in intestinal animal washings could allow the potentially degraded condition and the food effect of the luminal tract to be assessed before absorption.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1993

A comparison of cefpodoxime proxetil and cefaclor in the treatment of acute exacerbation of COPD in adults.

In this multicenter, observer-blinded study, 301 patients with signs and symptoms of acute bacterial exacerbation of COPD were randomized (2:1) to receive either cefpodoxime proxetil (200 mg, bid) or cefaclor (250 mg, tid) for 10 days. Clinical and microbiologic evaluations were performed before treatment, during therapy (study days 3 to 5), at the end of therapy (3 to 7 days posttreatment), and at long-term follow-up (4 weeks posttreatment). The most common pretreatment isolates were Haemophilus influenzae, Haemophilus parainfluenzae, and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Significantly (p < 0.001) more bacterial isolates were susceptible in vitro to cefpodoxime (233 of 256, 91 percent) than to cefaclor (215 of 255, 84 percent). There were no statistically significant differences between the two drug regimens in eradication of the initial pathogen (cefpodoxime, 116 of 128, 91 percent; cefaclor, 59 of 64, 92 percent) or end-of-therapy clinical response (cure + proved; cefpodoxime, 99 of 100, 99 percent; cefaclor, 45 of 49, 92 percent) rates for evaluable patients. Both drug treatments were well-tolerated, with a similar incidence of drug-related adverse events (cefpodoxime 11 percent, cefaclor 12 percent). Cefpodoxime (bid) was as safe and effective as cefaclor (tid) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of COPD. The less frequent dosing regimen of cefpodoxime may improve patient compliance compared to those antibiotics that require three or four daily doses.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1992

Disposition of cefpodoxime proxetil in hemodialysis patients.

The disposition of cefpodoxime after single, oral 200-mg doses of cefpodoxime proxetil (cefpodoxime equivalents) was investigated in an open-label study of six patients with end-stage renal disease currently maintained on hemodialysis. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups, which differed in the sequence of the interdialytic and intradialytic periods. Doses were separated by at least 2 weeks. Blood samples were serially collected for 48 hours after each treatment; if obtainable, urine was also collected over this same period. During the intradialytic period, hemodialysis was scheduled to begin approximately 3 hours after dosing, and dialysate was collected before and until the end of dialysis. Average cefpodoxime elimination half-life for the interdialytic period was 18.0 +/- 6.5 hours; apparent total body clearance was 28.6 +/- 13 mL/minute. The half-life during hemodialysis, 2.66 +/- 0.74 hours, was considerably shorter than that after hemodialysis, 19.2 +/- 3.5 hours, in the intradialytic period of the study. Hemodialysis clearance of cefpodoxime was 120 +/- 31 mL/minute, which was 57.1 +/- 13% and 71.7 +/- 25% of the hemodialysis clearance for urea nitrogen and creatinine, respectively. The 2.86 +/- 0.25 hour hemodialysis session removed 22.4 +/- 2.9% of the administered dose, as assessed by cefpodoxime recovery in dialysate. A maximum rebound in cefpodoxime plasma concentration of 0.41 +/- 0.33 mcg/mL was observed, at about one-half hour after the end of hemodialysis. Based on these results, dosage adjustment is not required, but extension of the dosing interval is warranted.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Administration, Oral↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Antibacterial activity of cefpodoxime in comparison with cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet, ceftibuten, loracarbef, cefprozil, BAY 3522, cefuroxime, cefaclor and cefadroxil.

The new oral cephalosporins cefpodoxime, cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet and ceftibuten demonstrate enhanced activity against Enterobacteriaceae susceptible to the established compounds as well (e.g. cefuroxime, cefaclor, cefadroxil). In addition, cefpodoxime, cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet and ceftibuten include in their spectrum species hitherto resistant to oral cephalosporins (Proteus vulgaris, Providencia spp., Yersinia enterocolitica). Besides, the majority of these compounds demonstrate relevant activity (MIC50 equal to or below 2 mg/l) against Enterobacter spp., Citrobacter freundii, Serratia spp. and Morganella morganii. Ceftibuten is the most potent oral cephalosporin against most of the Enterobacteriaceae. Non-fermentative bacilli (Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp.) remain completely resistant to oral cephalosporins (except some Acinetobacter species against cefdinir and Pseudomonas cepacia against ceftibuten). Antistaphylococcal activity for oral cephalosporins is highest for cefdinir followed by BAY 3522, cefprozil, cefuroxime and cefpodoxime. Loracarbef, cefaclor and cefadroxil are about equally active, while the other compounds are only weakly active (cefixime) or inactive (cefetamet, ceftibuten). Enterococci are insensitive to new generation oral cephalosporins as they have been to established compounds. The most active oral cephalosporins against hemolytic streptococci are cefdinir and cefprozil. Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus milleri and Streptococcus mitior are most susceptible to cefpodoxime, cefdinir, cefuroxime and BAY 3522. Penicillin resistant pneumococci have to be regarded as resistant to all oral cephalosporins. Fastidious pathogens like Haemophilus spp., Moraxella catarrhalis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are more susceptible to cefpodoxime, cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet and ceftibuten than to the other oral cephalosporins. The activity of oral cephalosporins is only weak against Listeria spp., Helicobacter pylori and anaerobic pathogens (except BAY 3522). Bordetella pertussis remains resistant to all absorbable cephalosporins. Progress in antibacterial activity of oral cephalosporins was mainly achieved by cefpodoxime, cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet and ceftibuten against Enterobacteriaceae and the fastidious pathogens and against staphylococci and the nonenterococcal streptococci by cefdinir, BAY 3522, cefprozil and cefpodoxime.

Bacteria↗
PubMed1990

The in-vitro activity of cefpodoxime: a comparison with other oral cephalosporins.

The in-vitro activity of cefpodoxime was studied in 529 clinical isolates and compared with the activity of other oral beta-lactams. Amongst the Enterobacteriaceae cefpodoxime was very active (MIC90 less than or equal to 1 mg/l--other than genera commonly possessing chromosomal beta-lactamases). Against these strains cefpodoxime was comparable in activity to cefixime and about eight-fold more active than cefuroxime and 8-16-fold more active than cefaclor and cephalexin. Staphylococcus aureus strains were moderately susceptible (MIC90 4 mg/l) to cefpodoxime in comparison with cefixime (16 mg/l). The respiratory pathogens, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Branhamella catarrhalis were susceptible to less than or equal to 0.5 mg/l cefpodoxime. An increase in inoculum from 10(4) to 10(6) cfu had little effect upon activity. Studies in beta-lactamase hydrolysis of cefpodoxime showed it to be stable to TEM-1, SHV-1 and BRO-1 enzymes but with high affinity for the P99 enzyme. The primary target of cefpodoxime is PBP3 (I50 1 mg/l) in Escherichia coli K12. The protein binding of the agent to human serum was 14.3-18.3% at 1 and 5 mg/l respectively.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1996

Cefpodoxime proxetil suspension compared with cefaclor suspension for treatment of acute otitis media in paediatric patients.

A multicentre open-label, randomised trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of cefpodoxime proxetil bd and cefaclor tds in the treatment of acute otitis media in children. A total of 167 children aged from 1 month to 11 years were enrolled in five centres: 78 treated with cefpodoxime and 83 treated with cefaclor, were evaluated in the ITT analysis. After tympanocentesis and culture of middle ear fluid, a pathogen was isolated from 85 (53%) of the 161 evaluable patients for the ITT analysis. The organisms isolated were as follows: Streptococcus pneumoniae: (n = 33, 37.5%); Haemophilus influenzae: (n = 22, 25%); Staphylococcus aureus: (n = 15, 17.1%); Streptococcus pyogenes: (n = 8, 9.1%); Moraxella catarrhalis: (n = 2, 2.3%); others (n = 6, 6.8%). Success (defined as a satisfactory clinical outcome, either cure or improvement) was achieved at the end of treatment, in 93.6% of ther patients in the cefpodoxime group and 91.6% of the patients in the cefaclor group (P> 0.05). Clinical recurrence was identified at the follow-up visit (30 days after inclusion), in 6.4% of the cefpodoxime-treated patients and 7.2% of the cefaclor-treated patients (P> 0.05). The drugs were well tolerated by 78/79 (99%) of patients in the cefpodoxime-treated group and 80/85 (94%) in the cefaclor-treated group. The incidence of adverse effects was higher in the cefaclor group than in the cefpodoxime group, but this was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). IN conclusion, cefpodaxime proxetil administered bd is as effective as cefaclor administered tds in the treatment of acute otitis media in children. The less frequent dosing schedule of cefpodoxime (bd) compared with cefaclor (tds) appears to be more convenient for the treatment of the infections in children.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1998

Cefpodoxime pharmacokinetics in children: effect of food.

BACKGROUND: Cefpodoxime, an oral third generation cephalosporin antibiotic, is used for the treatment of acute upper respiratory tract infection caused by susceptible bacteria in children 5 months to 12 years of age. We report the results of a randomized two-way crossover study designed to characterize the disposition of a single dose (10 mg/kg) of cefpodoxime proxetil oral suspension in children, under fed and fasted conditions. METHODS: Seventeen children (8.4 months to 12.2 years old, seven female) participated in this study. Each subject received a single 10-mg/kg dose of cefpodoxime proxetil oral suspension, after a predose fast and again coadministered with food. Repeated blood samples (n=10) were obtained during 12 h postdose and cefpodoxime was quantified from plasma by high performance liquid chromatography. Plasma concentration vs. time data were curve fit for each subject with a nonlinear weighted least squares algorithm, and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined from the polyexponential estimates. RESULTS: Cefpodoxime disposition was best characterized using a one-compartment open model with first order absorption. The area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve, Cmax and Ke were not significantly different between fed and fasted conditions. However, Tmax was significantly prolonged (fed=2.79+/-1.10 h vs. fasted=1.93+/-0.54 h) and Ka was significantly smaller (fed=0.42+/-0.14 h(-1) vs. fasted=0.81+/-0.72 h(-1)) in the fed state. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of cefpodoxime in the presence of food affected the rate but not the extent of absorption. Cefpodoxime proxetil oral suspension can be administered without regard to meals in children 6 months to 12 years of age.

Area Under Curve↗
PubMed1994

Five versus ten days treatment of streptococcal pharyngotonsillitis: a randomized controlled trial comparing cefpodoxime proxetil and phenoxymethyl penicillin.

A total of 220 adults and children > 10 years old (mean 29.5 +/- 11.7 years) with pharyngitis/tonsillitis were randomized to receive either cefpodoxime proxetil 100 mg bid for 5 days (n = 113) or phenoxymethyl penicillin, 600 mg tid for 10 days (n = 107). At the end of treatment of the 166 evaluable patients, a satisfactory clinical response was obtained in 85/88 (96.6%) patients treated with cefpodoxime proxetil and in 75/78 (96.1%) treated with phenoxymethyl penicillin. Group A beta-hemolytic streptococci (GABHS) eradication was similar in both groups: 79/82 (96.3%) patients in the cefpodoxime proxetil group and 64/68 (94.1%) patients in the phenoxymethyl penicillin group. At follow-up (20-30 days after the end of treatment) the GABHS eradication persisted in 67/72 (93.1%) patients treated with cefpodoxime proxetil and in 56/61 (91.8%) patients treated with phenoxymethyl penicillin. Significantly better compliance (p < 0.01) was noticed with the cefpodoxime proxetil regimen compared with the phenoxymethyl penicillin regimen, with only 2/110 (2%) poorly compliant patients in the cefpodoxime proxetil group vs 17/104 (16%) in the phenoxymethyl penicillin group. Thus, the shorter duration of therapy, in conjunction with demonstrated clinical and bacteriological efficacy that is equivalent to standard therapy, makes cefpodoxime proxetil an acceptable alternative for the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis/tonsillitis.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

[Comparative antibacterial activity of cefpodoxime against Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Moraxella catarrhalis].

The antimicrobial activity of cefpodoxime (Podomexef, CAS 80210-62-4) against 236 clinical isolates of H. influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Streptococcus pyogenes and Streptococcus pneumoniae was investigated and compared with that of another 8 commonly used oral antibiotics. beta-Lactamase negative, beta-lactamase positive and multiresistant strains of H. influenzae were inhibited by cefpodoxime at a concentration of 0.13 mg/l. 10% of Moraxella catarrhalis isolates were moderately susceptible to cefpodoxime, with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of cefpodoxime ranging between 0.13 and 2.0 mg/l. All isolates of Streptococcus pyogenes and Streptococcus pneumoniae were susceptible to < or = 0.25 mg/l cefpodoxime. Cefpodoxime was clearly more active than the older oral cephalosporins against all species tested. The activity was comparable to that of cefixime against all species except Streptococcus pneumoniae, against which cefpodoxime was more active than cefixime.

Bacteria↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Cefpodoxime proxetil in patients with endstage renal failure on hemodialysis.

The blood levels of cefpodoxime of 16 hemodialysis patients were monitored after a single oral of Cefpodoxime proxetil with a Cefpodixime-equivalent of 200 mg dose. Eight patients were on dialysis during the period of observation, while the other eight patients were observed during a non-dialysis period. During hemodialysis the cefpodoxime levels were determined before and after the capillary dialyzer. It became apparent that hemodialysis patients have considerably higher and longer-lasting concentrations than patients with normal kidney function. The area under the curve is about seven times greater. Cefpodoxime is thus apparently eliminated to a great extent renally. The concentration levels before capillary dialyzer are noticeably higher than those after capillary dialyzer, so that it can be assumed that cefpodoxime is being dialyzed: the area under the curve of the eight patients observed during hemodialysis was about 50% less than that of the patients observed while not on hemodialysis. Based on the pharmacokinetic data gathered, simulations of the course of concentration were made which took into consideration the clinical circumstances (normal period of dosage administration and dialysis). According to these simulations one can recommend a loading dose of 200 mg and thereafter a dose of 100 mg 12 h later followed by 100 mg every 24 h. This will result in an average concentration of 2 mg/l and never falling below 1.5 mg/l. With this schedule all bacteria considered to be sensitive can be reached. Cefpodoxime proxetil thereby ensures a simple and effective therapy of bacterial infections in hemodialysis patients.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1994

Determination of cefpodoxime levels in chinchilla middle ear fluid and plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography.

A high-performance liquid chromatographic method has been developed to determine cefpodoxime levels in chinchilla plasma and middle ear fluid (MEF) to be used in studying otitis media. Cefpodoxime and the internal standard, cefuroxime, were separated on an ODS column (250 x 2.1 mm I.D., 5 microns Hypersil), using a mobile phase of 25 mM acetate buffer (pH 4.3)/15 mM triethylamine-acetonitrile (92.5:7.5, v/v). Following elution of cefpodoxime and the internal standard, at 3.5 and 5.9 min respectively, the acetonitrile concentration was increased to 1:1 (v/v) in a step function to elute endogenous compounds retained on the column. Sample preparation involved protein precipitation with acetonitrile. This fast, efficient protein precipitation procedure together with UV detection allows a quantitation limit of 50 ng/ml with a 50-microliters sample size. Recoveries (mean +/- S.D., n = 3) at 0.1 microgram/ml in MEF were 90.3 +/- 2.9% and 88.6 +/- 1.2% for cefpodoxime and cefuroxime respectively. Recoveries (mean +/- S.D., n = 3) at 0.1 microgram/ml in plasma were 72.1 +/- 7.3% and 81.1 +/- 1.1% for cefpodoxime and cefuroxime respectively. The method was evaluated with biological samples taken from chinchillas with middle ear infections after administering cefpodoxime proxetil.

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

In vitro activity of cefpodoxime compared with other oral cephalosporins tested against 5556 recent clinical isolates from five medical centers.

A multicenter study was conducted in which the in vitro activity of cefpodoxime (the active metabolite of the prodrug ester cefpodoxime proxetil) was compared with those of cefixime, cefuroxime, cefaclor, cefadroxil, and clarithromycin against 5556 recent clinical isolates. Cefpodoxime demonstrated potent activity against members of the Enterobacteriaceae, in particular against species generally resistant to the established oral cephalosporins such as Proteus vulgaris [minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)50, 0.12 microgram/ml], Providencia rettgeri (MIC50, 0.015 microgram/ml), and Serratia marcescens (MIC50, 2 micrograms/ml). Cefpodoxime was very effective against the fastidious organisms most frequently associated with respiratory infections, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae (MIC90, 0.12 microgram/ml), Haemophilus influenzae (MIC90, 0.12 microgram/ml), and Moraxella catarrhalis (MIC90, 1 microgram/ml). In contrast to other orally administrated third-generation cephalosporins (cefixime or ceftibuten), cefpodoxime demonstrated reasonable activity against oxacillin-susceptible staphylococci, with MIC50 ranging from 1 to 2 micrograms/ml. All cephalosporins tested demonstrated poor activity against Pseudomonas spp., Xanthomonas spp., Enterococcus spp., and oxacillin-resistant staphylococci. Cefpodoxime had the widest spectrum of activity of all tested oral cephalosporins.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2006

[Treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis in adults. Comparison of cefpodoxime-proxetil and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid].

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to demonstrate the equivalence of the clinical efficacy and safety of cefpodoxime-proxetil (200 mg bid for 5 days) to that of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (1 g/125 mg bid for 8 days) in adults with acute maxillary sinusitis. METHOD: In this prospective, multicenter, centrally-randomized, open-label study, 73 general practitioners and 11 ear, nose, and throat specialists included 512 patients with unilateral acute maxillary sinusitis. RESULTS: The clinical success rates at day 12-19 in the per-protocol population (primary analysis) were 92.3% (215/233) in the cefpodoxime-proxetil group and 93.6% (204/218) in the amoxicillin-clavulanic acid group. The 95% confidence interval of [6.5%; 3.9%] demonstrated that cefpodoxime-proxetil was not inferior to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid. Cure rates at follow-up (day 25-30) were 90.6% and 92.7%, respectively. Results were similar in the intent-to-treat population. Compliance was significantly better in the cefpodoxime-proxetil group (99.2% versus 95.5%; p=0.011). Tolerance was also significantly better: 1.2% (3/247) of cefpodoxime-proxetil patients reported a treatment-related adverse event, compared with 10.7% (26/244) in the amoxicillin-clavulanic acid group (p<0.001). Most events were gastrointestinal and of mild to moderate intensity. CONCLUSION: In this study, a 5-day course of cefpodoxime-proxetil at 200 mg bid was as clinically effective as amoxicillin-clavulanic acid 1 g/125 mg bid for 8 days with a significantly better safety profile and compliance.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1990

Cefpodoxime: comparable evaluation with other orally available cephalosporins. With a note on the role of beta-lactamases.

The antibacterial activity of cefpodoxime, a new orally active methoxy-imino cephalosporin was evaluated in 470 recent isolates of gram-positive cocci and gram-negative rods from clinical specimens and compared to that of other orally active beta-lactam compounds. Cefpodoxime was highly active against ampicillin-resistant enterobacteria producing the plasmid-mediated TEM-1, TEM-2 or OXA-1 enzymes, as was the case for the other newer compounds. However, it was poorly active against cefuroxime-resistant (MIC greater than or equal to 16 mg/l) E. coli isolates, thus resembling cefetamet and cefixime. It was inactive against isolates exhibiting a production of large amounts of class I beta-lactamase, as was the case with all other compounds studied. Cefpodoxime was highly active against beta-hemolytic streptococci and against Haemophilus influenzae, resembling the related agents. Moreover, its activity against Staphylococcus aureus was comparable to that of cefotaxime and exceeded that of cefetamet and cefixime. Cefpodoxime and the other methoxyimino cephalosporins exhibited a poor affinity to the plasmid-mediated TEM-2 and OXA-1 enzymes. The hydrolysis of cefpodoxime by class I beta-lactamases was barely detectable, whereas it served as a moderate substrate for the enzyme from Klebsiella oxytoca 3951. Cefpodoxime, cefetamet and cefixime were slowly inactivated by the enzyme from Proteus vulgaris 4917 (an enzyme with cefuroximase activity) and much poorer substrates than cefotaxime.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed1992

Concentrations of cefpodoxime in serum and bronchial mucosal biopsies.

Cefpodoxime proxetil is a new orally administered cephalosporin which has a favorable spectrum of activity against respiratory pathogens. Concentrations of cefpodoxime in serum and bronchial mucosal biopsy were measured in 13 patients without active respiratory tract infection undergoing fibreoptic bronchoscopy. Samples were taken between 1 and 6 h after a single oral dose of cefpodoxime proxetil equivalent to 200 mg of cefpodoxime base. In twelve patients who completed the study, mean serum concentrations were 1.7 mg/L (S.E.M. 0.4) and in ten patients mean bronchial biopsy concentrations were 0.9 mg/L (S.E.M. 0.2). The mean penetration was 54% (S.E.M. 6.1). Cefpodoxime was undetectable in biopsies from two patients. The majority of serum and biopsy concentrations were in excess of the MIC90S for Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Cefpodoxime proxetil may be worthy of further study in clinical trials in patients with respiratory infections.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Antibacterial activity of cefpodoxime in vitro.

Cefpodoxime proxetil is a new orally administered prodrug which is absorbed and de-esterified by the intestinal mucosa to release the third-generation cephalosporin, cefpodoxime, and which is undergoing in vitro and in vivo evaluations. Using the standard agar dilution method, we compared the in vitro activity of this drug with other oral cephalosporins and quinolones against 637 recent clinical isolates from Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan. Against Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, cefpodoxime showed excellent activity, inhibiting over 90% of these isolates at 1 mg/l. Like other oral drugs of its class, it had little activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. Against Haemophilus influenzae, irrespective of beta-lactamase production, its activity was similar to comparative drugs. Against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, cefpodoxime showed moderate activity, inhibiting 90% of these isolates at 4 mg/l, whereas it was inactive against methicillin-resistant S. aureus. However, all cephalosporins have shown little in vivo activity against methicillin-resistant S. aureus regardless of in vitro results. Cefpodoxime was inactive against Enterococcus spp. Against other streptococci, its activity was similar to other oral cephalosporins and quinolones tested. The results of this in vitro study indicated that oral administration of cefpodoxime should be an ideal agent in the empirical outpatient treatment for community-acquired cutaneous, respiratory and urinary tract infections.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed1993

Cefpodoxime proxetil: a new, broad-spectrum, oral cephalosporin.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the chemistry, pharmacokinetics, spectrum of activity, clinical trials, adverse effects, drug interactions, and dosage guidelines of cefpodoxime proxetil. DATA SOURCES: Literature was identified through a MEDLINE search from 1988 to the present and from review of bibliographies in that literature. STUDY SELECTION: Data were limited to comparative trials published in the English literature. Although many studies were conducted in Japan, the results often were available only in Japanese or partly in English. As these studies could not be completely evaluated, they are not included in this review. DATA SYNTHESIS: Cefpodoxime exhibits good activity against many gram-positive and gram-negative organisms. In clinical trials, cefpodoxime was similar in both clinical and bacteriologic efficacy to amoxicillin, cefaclor, amoxicillin/clavulanate, and penicillin in the treatment of respiratory and urinary tract infections. It also appeared effective in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections, although no comparative trials have been performed. Cefpodoxime is well tolerated by children and is effective in the treatment of otitis media and pharyngitis. It has a similar adverse effect profile to that of other penicillins and cephalosporins, with gastrointestinal effects being most common. CONCLUSIONS: Cefpodoxime demonstrates good in vitro activity against pathogens frequently associated with respiratory tract, urinary tract, and skin and tissue infections. It has not demonstrated greater efficacy than the other antibiotics to which it has been compared. The available published clinical trials are fraught with methodologic, statistical, and evaluative flaws. Thus, further trials comparing cefpodoxime with established treatments, as well as the newer cephalosporins, are needed before its place in therapy can be established.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1991

Review of clinical experience in the United States with cefpodoxime proxetil in adults with uncomplicated urinary tract infections.

Two controlled United States trials compared the safety and efficacy of cefpodoxime proxetil (100mg twice daily) with either cefaclor (250mg 3 times daily) or amoxicillin (250mg 3 times daily) in patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Treatment duration was 7 days. 307 of 762 patients treated with cefpodoxime proxetil, 99 of 190 treated with cefaclor, and 57 of 185 treated with amoxicillin were evaluable for efficacy. 311, 99 and 59 pathogens were isolated from cefpodoxime proxetil, cefaclor and amoxicillin patients, respectively, the most common pathogens being Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Proteus mirabilis, and Staphylococcus saprophyticus. Bacteriological cure rates were 80% (247/307), 82% (81/99) and 70% (40/57) for cefpodoxime proxetil, cefaclor and amoxicillin, respectively. Respective clinical cure rates were 79% (242/307), 79% (78/99) and 72% (41/57). Cefpodoxime proxetil was well tolerated, and there was no significant difference between the groups in the overall incidence of adverse experiences. Thus, cefpodoxime proxetil is efficacious and safe in the treatment of patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infections and compares favourably with cefaclor and amoxicillin.

Adolescent↗