Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Cefepime”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between cefepime and amikacin in humans.

The interaction potential between cefepime and amikacin was investigated in a steady-state pharmacokinetic study in 16 healthy male subjects. Eight subjects (group A) received a first course of 2,000 mg of cefepime; this was followed by a second course of 2,000 mg of cefepime with 300 mg of amikacin and a third course of 2,000 mg of cefepime. Eight other subjects (group B) received a first course of 300 mg of amikacin, a second course of 300 mg of amikacin with 2,000 mg of cefepime, and a third course of 300 mg of amikacin. Each course consisted of four consecutive doses administered every 8 h as 30-min intravenous infusions. Serial plasma and urine samples, which were collected after administration of the fourth dose of each course, were assayed for cefepime and/or amikacin by validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assays. Trough levels of cefepime and amikacin indicated that these antibiotics attained a steady state prior to administration of the fourth dose of each course. Key pharmacokinetic parameters for each antibiotic were determined by noncompartmental methods. The peak concentrations of cefepime and amikacin in plasma when the drugs were given alone were about 160 and 27 micrograms/ml, respectively. Levels of each antibiotic in plasma declined, with an apparent half-life of approximately 2.2 h. Urinary recovery of cefepime and amikacin accounted for more than 85% of the administered dose of each antibiotic. Mean renal clearances for cefepime and amikacin ranged from 79 to 95 ml/min and suggested that glomerular filtration is the primary excretion mechanism. The results of the statistical analyses indicated that the pharmacokinetic parameters of cefepime following the concurrent administration of amikacin and following the discontinuation of the amikacin following the concurrent administration of cefepime and following the discontinuation of the cefepime therapy were not significantly altered. Cefepime and amikacin can be coadministered to patients with normal renal function by using the standard recommended dosing regimens.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

A randomized study of cefepime versus the combination of gentamicin and mezlocillin as an adjunct to surgical treatment in patients with acute cholecystitis.

In patients with acute cholecystitis, antibiotics are used as an adjunct to cholecystectomy to reduce the incidence of postoperative septic complications thought to be related to bactibilia. Combinations of penicillins, or cephalosporins or aminoglycosides, or both, are often used. Cefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin with excellent activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, including Pseudomonas species. It has a prolonged serum half-life, allowing twice-daily dosing, and is not nephrotoxic. This study was undertaken to determine whether or not cefepime was as effective as the combination of gentamicin and mezlocillin in patients with acute cholecystitis. One hundred and forty-nine patients were randomized, two to one, to receive cefepime or gentamicin and mezlocillin. Cefepime was given intravenously at 2 grams every 12 hours; gentamicin, 1.0 to 1.5 milligrams per kilograms every eight hours, and mezlocillin, 3 to 4 grams every four to six hours. All patients underwent cholecystectomy. Bile cultures were obtained, and concentrations of cefepime in blood, bile, peritoneal fluid and gallbladder were determined in a subset of patients. There were 56 evaluable cefepime-treated and 34 evaluable gentamicin and mezlocillin-treated patients. Bactibilia was present in 17 of 56 cefepime-treated patients (30.4 percent) and ten of 34 gentamicin and mezlocillin-treated patients (29.4 percent). Enterococci were recovered in six cefepime-treated patients. Clinical and bacteriologic responses were similar for the cefepime-treated and gentamicin and mezlocillin-treated groups, with one failure in each group, a wound infection in a patient receiving cefepime and a subhepatic abscess in a patients receiving gentamicin and mezlocillin. Other measures of outcome, such as the number of days of fever, days nothing by mouth, days of hospitalization and days of antibiotic therapy were similar in both groups. Cefepime, with every 12 hour dosing, achieved extremely high concentrations in all tissues assayed at the time of the operation, a mean of eight hours after administration. Adverse clinical events were similar in both treatment groups. Cefepime is as effective as gentamicin and mezlocillin in preventing septic complications after cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Cefepime requires fewer doses, does not require drug monitoring, is not associated with nephrotoxicity and may therefore prove to be a cost-effective alternative to combination therapy that uses an aminoglycoside.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1994

Cefepime. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use.

Cefepime is a 'fourth' generation cephalosporin that has a broader spectrum of antibacterial activity than the third generation cephalosporins and is more active in vitro against Gram-positive aerobic bacteria. The fact that cefepime is stable to hydrolysis by many of the common plasmid- and chromosomally-mediated beta-lactamases, and that it is a poor inducer of type I beta-lactamases, indicates that cefepime may be useful for treatment of infections resistant to earlier cephalosporins. In comparative trials, cefepime 1 to 2 g, usually administered intravenously twice daily, was as effective as ceftazidime 1 to 2 g, usually administered 3 times daily, for treatment of bacteraemia and infections of the lower respiratory tract, urinary tract, pelvis and skin and skin structures. Furthermore, cefepime was as effective as ceftazidime and piperacillin or mezlocillin in combination with gentamicin when administered as empirical treatment for fever in patients with neutropenia. A limited number of trials have found cefepime to be as effective as cefotaxime for the treatment of gynaecological and lower respiratory tract infections. Similarly, cefepime 2 g twice daily intravenously (alone or in combination with metronidazole) was as effective as gentamicin in combination with mezlocillin or clindamycin, respectively, for the treatment of intra-abdominal infection. Cefepime has a linear pharmacokinetic profile, an elimination half-life of approximately 2 hours and is primarily excreted by renal mechanisms as unchanged drug. Cefepime has a tolerability profile similar to that of other parenteral cephalosporins; adverse events are primarily gastrointestinal in nature. A total of 1.4 and 2.9% of patients receiving cefepime < or = 2 g/day and > 2 g/day, respectively, required treatment withdrawal as a result of any adverse event. Thus, cefepime has the advantage of an improved spectrum of antibacterial activity, and is less susceptible to hydrolysis by some beta-lactamases, compared with third generation cephalosporins. Despite these advantages, cefepime has not been found to be more effective than ceftazidime and cefotaxime in clinical trials, although most trials selected patients with organisms sensitive in vitro to both comparator agents. Further trials, particularly in areas of widespread bacterial resistance, are required to confirm the positioning of cefepime for treatment of serious infection, and in particular to further explore whether its potential advantages result in clinical benefits.

Aging↗
PubMed1994

Cefepime: a new fourth-generation cephalosporin.

The chemistry, pharmacology, antimicrobial spectrum, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, and dosage of cefepime are reviewed. Fourth-generation cephalosporins, such as cefepime, have a quaternary nitrogen that is positively charged at the 3-position, providing the properties of a zwitterion. A 2-aminothiazolyl-acetamido group in the side chain at the 7-position with an alpha-oxyimino substitution may enhance stability against beta-lactamases by preventing the enzymes' approach to the main nucleus. Cefepime may exert its antimicrobial effect by attaching to specific penicillin-binding proteins, disrupting cell-wall synthesis. Cefepime has good activity against gram-positive organisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus, and gram-negative organisms, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Cefepime is not active in vitro against Enterococcus faecalis, Clostridium difficile, and methicillin- and cefazolin-resistant Staph. aureus. Cefepime's activity against gram-negative organisms is similar to that of most third-generation cephalosporins. The agent has poor activity against Bacteroides species. The most common mechanism of resistance to cefepime is the excess production of beta-lactamases. Maximum peak plasma concentrations are two to three times higher after i.v. administration than after intramuscular administration. In healthy adults, the volume of distribution is 13-22 L and the elimination half-life is 2-2.3 hours. Clinical studies show that cefepime is as effective as cefotaxime or ceftazidime in patients with infections of the lower respiratory tract, skin and skin structures, urinary tract, or female reproductive system. Cefepime reduces fever as effectively as ceftazidime or piperacillin plus gentamicin in neutropenic patients. The most common adverse effects of cefepime are headache (2.4%), nausea (1.8%), rash (1.8%), and diarrhea (1.7%). Depending on creatinine clearance, the dosage of cefepime is 1000-2000 mg i.v. every 8-24 hours for life-threatening infections and 500-2000 mg i.v. every 12-24 hours for severe infections. Cefepime's clinical efficacy is comparable to that of ceftazidime and cefotaxime.

Animals↗
PubMed1993

Randomized comparative study of cefepime and cefotaxime in the treatment of acute obstetric and gynaecological infections.

Patients with presumed acute gynaecological infections were randomized (2:1) to receive cefepime 2 g every 12 h (n = 159) or cefotaxime 2 g every 8 h (n = 72), both im or by a 30-min i.v. infusion. For evaluation of efficacy, patients were required to have a bacteriologically documented infection, with at least one pathogen isolated susceptible to both drugs. Duration of treatment was 2-8 days in the 95 cefepime-treated patients and 3-10 days in the 36 cefotaxime-treated patients with evaluable infections; approximately three-quarters of the patients in each group were treated for 4-5 days. Clinical response was satisfactory in 81/95 (85%) of the evaluable cefepime recipients and 30/36 (83%) of the evaluable cefotaxime recipients (P = 0.802). In total, 211 (85%) of the 247 pathogens isolated from evaluable cefepime recipients were eradicated, compared with 98 (90%) of 109 pathogens isolated from evaluable cefotaxime recipients. All pathogens were eradicated in 77 (81%) cefepime-treated patients and in 31 (86%) cefotaxime-treated patients (P = 0.379). Overall response to treatment, calculated by combining clinical response and individual patient bacteriological response, was considered effective, partially effective or ineffective in 77%, 13% and 11% of cefepime-treated patients respectively and in 75%, 19% and 6% of cefotaxime-treated patients respectively (P = 0.932 for effective response). Adverse clinical events were reported by 68 (43%) of 159 cefepime recipients and by 26 (36%) of 72 cefotaxime recipients (P = 0.342); adverse events were deemed drug-related in 6% of cefepime recipients (diarrhoea, rash and headache) and in 1% of cefotaxime recipients (diarrhoea, pruritus and rash). Treatment was discontinued prematurely due to adverse events in five cefepime-treated patients and in one cefotaxime-treated patient (P = 0.476). Local intolerance was reported by 33 (21%) of the 159 cefepime-treated patients and by 14 (19%) of the 72 cefotaxime-treated patients receiving drug via the iv route alone; none of the patients discontinued treatment because of local intolerance. Laboratory test abnormalities were observed in a small number of patients in each group (1-8%), but none warranted discontinuation of treatment. Cefepime 2 g bd appears to have efficacy and safety comparable to that of cefotaxime 2 g tid in the treatment of acute obstetric and gynaecological infections.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1990

[Immunological properties of BMY-28100 and cefepime].

Immunogenicity, eliciting antigenicity and cross-reactivity of new cephem antibiotics, BMY-28100 and cefepime, were studied by means of passive cutaneous anaphylaxis (PCA), passive hemagglutination (PHA) and active systemic anaphylaxis in guinea pigs, and of PCA in mice and the results were compared with those obtained with reference antibiotics. In addition, the direct Coombs' reaction of the human blood was examined in vitro for the test antibiotics as compared with reference antibiotics. The results obtained are summarized as follows: 1. Immunogenicity Immunogenicity of unconjugated antibiotics was examined using the corresponding conjugates with bovine gamma-globulin (BGG) as eliciting antigen. When used as emulsions with Freund's complete adjuvant, cephalothin (CET) and benzylpenicillin (PCG) produced IgG1 and IgM antibodies in guinea pigs. However, cefepime as well as cephalexin (CEX) did not produce these antibodies, and BMY-28100 showed slightly active sensitization only for anaphylactic shock. In BALB/c and C3H/He mice, BMY-28100 and cefepime failed to produce antibodies under the experimental condition while IgE antibody formation to CET was observed. 2. Eliciting antigenicity Unconjugated CET and PCG provoked anaphylactic signs in guinea pigs sensitized with their conjugates with rabbit serum albumin (RSA). Cefepime, however, provoked no anaphylactic shock and BMY-28100 as well as CEX showed slight signs. In the other systems examined, no reactions were observed when elicited with BMY-28100, cefepime or the reference antibiotics. 3. Immunological cross-reactivity BMY-28100 did not cross-react with the reference antibiotics. While the antiserum to the RSA conjugate of CET provoked weak cross-reaction on PHA with the BGG conjugate of cefepime, the antiserum to the RSA conjugate of cefepime failed to react with the BGG conjugate of CET. Other cross-reactivities of cefepime were not observed against the reference antibiotics. 4. In vitro direct Coombs' reaction BMY-28100 did not induce the Coombs' reaction of the human blood in vitro at the testable concentration of 10 mg/ml. Cefepime or cefazolin (CEZ) caused no reaction even at a high concentration of 80 mg/ml, while CET and PCG caused a positive reaction at 10-40 mg/ml and 60 mg/ml, respectively. As shown above, immunogenicity and eliciting antigenicity of BMY-28100 and cefepime were somewhat weaker than CET and PCG but similar to CEX, and cross-reactivities of the test antibiotics with these reference antibiotics were not observed in general. The ability of BMY-28100 to give a positive reaction in the Coombs' test was weaker than that of CET, and that of cefepime was weaker than CET and PCG and equivalent to CEZ.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Animals↗
PubMed1993

International comparative study of cefepime and ceftazidime in the treatment of serious bacterial infections.

In this randomized multicentre study, we compared the safety and efficacy of cefepime, 2.0 g bd i.v., with that of ceftazidime, 2.0 g tid i.v., as initial treatment of adult patients with serious infections of bacterial aetiology. Three hundred and forty-eight patients were entered into the study, 173 received cefepime and 175 ceftazidime. The treatment groups were comparable with respect to demographic characteristics, including the types of infection (cefepime/ceftazidime: urinary tract, 55/72; lower respiratory tract, 83/74; skin and soft tissue, 23/14; septicaemia, 81/81; and others, 15/5). Gram-positive bacteria were identified as pathogens on 86 occasions (cefepime/ceftazidime: 48/41), including 20 Staphylococcus aureus isolates (13/7) and 27 Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates (14/13). Gram-negative bacilli were isolated on 261 occasions (126/135), and included 219 Enterobacteriaceae (cefepime/ceftazidime: 108/111) and 34 strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (14/20). An intention-to-treat analysis revealed satisfactory clinical response rates of 80% and 79% for the cefepime and ceftazidime groups, respectively, and bacteriological eradication rates of 85% and 88% for the cefepime and ceftazidime groups, respectively. Of patients with microbiologically documented infections, 86% (84 of 98) treated with cefepime and 87% (94 of 108) treated with ceftazidime responded satisfactorily. Thirty-two patients (19%) treated with cefepime and 26 (15%) treated with ceftazidime died. Thirty-six patients in the cefepime group and 23 in the ceftazidime group experienced adverse events; therapy was discontinued prematurely in four and two patients in the cefepime and ceftazidime groups, respectively. Of the patients experiencing adverse events, 22 (13%) treated with cefepime developed intolerance at the injection site, compared with 11 (6%) treated with ceftazidime (P = 0.045). In conclusion, twice-daily cefepime (2 g bd) is at least as effective as ceftazidime (2 g tid), as initial empirical therapy for serious bacterial infections in non-neutropenic patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

Activity of cefepime against ceftazidime- and cefotaxime-resistant gram-negative bacteria and its relationship to beta-lactamase levels.

One hundred clinical isolates resistant to ceftazidime and/or cefotaxime were examined for susceptibility to cefepime. The most frequently encountered ceftazidime-cefotaxime-resistant strains belonged to the genera Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, and Citrobacter. Among these strains, 92% were resistant to cefoperazone, 91% were resistant to cefotaxime, 84% were resistant to ceftazidime, and 6% were resistant to cefepime. Of the members of the family Enterobacteriaceae, 57% were resistant to ceftriaxone. The six strains resistant to cefepime were all Pseudomonas aeruginosa and were resistant to both cefotaxime and ceftazidime. Cefepime-resistant P. aeruginosa strains had exceptionally high levels of beta-lactamase activity, higher than the levels found in strains resistant to ceftazidime but susceptible to cefepime. The beta-lactamases from the cefepime-resistant strains were type I (Richmond-Sykes), were constitutively produced, and did not have increased affinity or hydrolytic activity for cefepime. Thus, cefepime was active against most gram-negative bacteria which have developed resistance to the broad-spectrum cephalosporins, and resistance to cefepime in P. aeruginosa appears to be associated with higher beta-lactamase levels than in cefepime-susceptible strains.

Bacterial Infections↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Disposition of the cephalosporin cefepime in normal and renally impaired subjects.

The metabolism and disposition of an iv-administered, 1000 mg (100 microCi) single dose of the 14C-labeled cephalosporin cefepime was studied in healthy and renally impaired male volunteers. The 14C-label was located in the methyl group of the N-methyl pyrrolidine (NMP) moiety at the 3'-position of cefepime. Concentrations of cefepime and its metabolites were determined in plasma and urine as a function of time after drug administration. Cefepime comprised 95 and 76% of the total plasma radioactivity in subjects with normal and impaired renal functions, respectively. The elimination half-life of cefepime was 2 hr in normal volunteers and increased to 4 and 12 hr in subjects with moderate and severe renal impairment, respectively. Steady-state volume of distribution was about 18 liters and was independent of the degree of renal impairment. Cefepime was primarily excreted unchanged in the urine of normal subjects, as 87.9% of the total recovered radioactivity. The major cefepime metabolites, NMP N-oxide, the 7-epimer of cefepime and NMP, constituted 6.8, 2.5, and less than 1% of the total radioactivity excreted in urine, respectively. As the severity of renal impairment increased, the proportion of radioactivity recovered in urine as cefepime decreased and that of NMP-N-oxide increased. Our results indicate that cefepime undergoes minimal metabolism and is excreted primarily as unchanged drug in urine in humans with normal kidney functions.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

In-vitro antibacterial activity of cefepime: a multicentre study.

The antimicrobial activity of cefepime, a new broad-spectrum parenteral cephalosporin, was evaluated in vitro against 1757 recent clinical Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates. Cefepime was active at low concentrations (MIC50 values < or = 0.06 mg/L and MIC90 values < or = 0.12 mg/L) against non-cephalosporinase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp.). For Klebsiella pneumoniae, MICs were between 0.016 and 16 mg/L; the highest MIC values were observed for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing strains. Against Enterobacteriaceae, such as cephalosporinase producing Enterobacter cloacae, MICs were < or = 0.5 mg/L, but MICs against cephalosporinase hyperproducing strains were generally higher. Ticarcillin-sensitive strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were inhibited by cefepime concentrations of 0.5-16 mg/L, while cefepime MICs were 8-64 mg/L for strains resistant to ticarcillin. The cefepime MIC50 value for Haemophilus spp. including many resistant to amoxycillin, was 0.03 mg/L. Against methicillin-sensitive strains of Staphylococcus aureus, cefepime MICs were 0.5-16 mg/L; MICs against methicillin-resistant staphylococci were 16- > 128 mg/L). Against methicillin-sensitive coagulase-negative staphylococci, cefepime MIC values were 0.03-16 mg/L; corresponding values for methicillin-resistant strains were 2-128 mg/L. Streptococci (Groups A, C and G) were sensitive to cefepime with MICs ranging from < or = 0.008-2 mg/L (MIC50, 0.03 mg/L; MIC90, 0.25 mg/L). The activity of cefepime against Group B streptococci and pneumococci were comparable, with MIC50 values of 0.12 and 0.25 mg/L, respectively, and MIC90 values of 0.03 and 0.25 mg/L, respectively. Most enterococci and all Listeria monocytogenes strains had MICs > or = 32 mg/L.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Bacteria↗
PubMed1992

Pharmacokinetics of cefepime after single and multiple intravenous administrations in healthy subjects.

The pharmacokinetics of cefepime in 31 young, healthy volunteers were assessed after the administration of single and multiple 250-, 500-, 1,000-, or 2,000-mg intravenous doses. Each subject received a single dose of cefepime via a 30-min intravenous infusion on day 1 of the study. Starting from day 2, subjects received multiple doses of cefepime every 8 h for 9 days, and on the morning of day 11, they received the last dose. Serial blood and urine samples were collected after administration of the first dose and on days 1, 6, and 11. Cefepime concentrations in plasma and urine were assayed by using reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography with UV detection. Data were evaluated by noncompartmental methods to determine pharmacokinetic parameters. The mean half-life of cefepime was approximately 2 h and did not vary with the dose or duration of dosing. The regression analyses of peak levels (Cmax) in plasma at the end of the 30-min intravenous infusion and the area under the plasma concentration-versus-time curve (AUCo-infinity) showed a dose-proportional response. The steady-state volume of distribution (Vss) was approximately 18 liters and was independent of the administered dose. The multiple-dose pharmacokinetic data are suggestive of a lack of accumulation or change in clearance of cefepime on repeated dosing. Cefepime was excreted primarily unchanged in urine. The recovery of intact cefepime in urine was invariant with respect to the dose and accounted for over 80% of the dose. The values for renal clearance ranged from 99 to 132 ml/min and were suggestive of glomerular filtration as the primary excretion mechanism. It is concluded that cefepime linear pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Cefepime.

Because of the popularity of some third-generation cephalosporins, emergence of resistant organisms (e.g., selected Enterobacteriaceae) that produce inducible and extended-spectrum beta-lactamases has been a problem. Cefepime's twice-a-day dosage schedule and enhanced activity against Enterobacteriaceae and gram-positive organisms give it several advantages over older drugs. The clinical efficacy of cefepime has been demonstrated in comparative and noncomparative trials in the United States and Europe. Cefepime with twice-daily dosing has been useful in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, skin and skin structure infections, and in serious infection, including those with associated bacteremia. Cefepime is comparable to ceftazidime in clinical and bacteriologic response rates when both agents are administered three times a day in febrile neutropenic patients. Cefepime is also active against organisms that show resistance to other agents. Several studies have shown that cefepime retains its activity against E. cloacae and E. coli strains resistant to other cephalosporins and against many strains of P. aeruginosa resistant to ceftazidime. Cefepime exhibits a low level of cross-resistance with third-generation cephalosporins and a low propensity for selection of resistant mutants and offers a low potential for the induction of bacterial resistance, which complicates the course of many patients treated with single-agent third-generation therapy. Cefepime should be used in place of ceftazidime based on resistance potential, activity against resistant organisms, and cost.

Bacterial Infections↗
PubMed1989

Comparison of the in vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of cefepime (BMY-28142) with ceftazidime, cefuzonam, cefotaxime and cefmenoxime.

Cefepime (BMY-28142), a new semisynthetic cephalosporin, was evaluated for in vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities in comparison with ceftazidime, cefuzonam, cefotaxime and cefmenoxime. Cefepime showed a well-balanced, broad spectrum of activity against a number of clinical isolates collected in Japan. The activity of cefepime against Gram-positive bacteria was several times greater than that of ceftazidime, nearly comparable to cefotaxime and cefmenoxime, and slightly weaker than cefuzonam. Against Enterobacteriaceae, cefepime showed superior activity to the reference cephalosporins against Proteus inconstans, Providencia rettgeri, Morganella morganii, Citrobacter freundii and Enterobacter cloacae. The activity of cefepime against Pseudomonas aeruginosa was nearly comparable to that of ceftazidime. Cefotaxime, cefuzonam and cefmenoxime were substantially less active against P. aeruginosa. Cefepime was more stable than cefuzonam, cefotaxime and cefmenoxime to various types of beta-lactamases from Gram-negative bacteria. The high in vitro activity of cefepime was reflected in its in vivo efficacy against experimental infections in normal and immuno-suppressed mice. Cefepime was the most effective among the cephalosporins tested against four Gram-negative bacterial infections.

Animals↗
PubMed1994

Antimicrobial activity of cefepime tested against Bush group I beta-lactamase-producing strains resistant to ceftazidime. A multilaboratory national and international clinical isolate study.

The potency of cefepime, a parenteral aminothiazolyl methoxyimino cephalosporin, was assessed against 256 ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative bacilli from five medical centers in the United States. In addition, cefepime activity was compared with that of ciprofloxacin and imipenem against 506 ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative bacilli collected during an 11-medical-center international study. All US clinical isolates were susceptible (< or = 8 micrograms/ml) to cefepime except Enterobacter cloacae (94% susceptible) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (19% susceptible). Enterobacteriaceae isolates from the 11-nation sample were > 80% cefepime susceptible with the exception of those from Brazil (48% susceptible) and Italy (55% susceptible). These international, enteric isolates were also very susceptible to ciprofloxacin (55%-100% susceptible) and imipenem (84%-100% susceptible). Nonenteric organisms (Pseudomonas, Xanthomonas, and Acinetobacter) from the same international locations had overall rates of susceptibility of 47% for ciprofloxacin, 28% for imipenem, and only 5% for cefepime. Cross-resistance between the broad-spectrum cephalosporins (cefepime or ceftazidime) with either imipenem or ciprofloxacin was incomplete. Cefepime appears to have a spectrum of use against a significant number of contemporary, ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative bacillus isolates worldwide.

Cefepime↗
PubMed1991

A randomized trial of cefepime (BMY-28142) and ceftazidime for the treatment of pneumonia.

Cefepime is a new cephalosporin with a broad antimicrobial spectrum that includes Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. To study the efficacy and safety of cefepime for treatment of pneumonia, 65 patients were randomized to therapy with either cefepime or ceftazidime at a two to one ratio. Of the 57 evaluable patients, 89% of the cefepime patients and 84% of the ceftazidime patients were cured clinically or improved. Haemophilus spp., Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Neisseria spp. were common pathogens. Bacteriological cure was achieved in 31 (91%) of cefepime patients and 17 (100%) ceftazidime patients. Adverse clinical and laboratory reactions possibly due to study drug occurred in 9 (21%) cefepime patients and in 1 (5%) ceftazidime patient. Most reactions were mild and resolved with discontinuation of study drug. In this study, cefepime appeared as effective as ceftazidime for the treatment of pneumonia.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

Multiple dose pharmacokinetics, safety, and effects on faecal microflora, of cefepime in healthy volunteers.

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 12 healthy volunteers pharmacokinetics, safety and impact on the faecal microflora of cefepime were determined. For eight days eight volunteers received cefepime 1000 mg bd by constant infusion over 30 min, four volunteers received placebo. Concentrations of cefepime in serum and urine were measured by bioassay and HPLC. The correlation between the two methods was good and the bioassay results were used for pharmacokinetic calculations. The faecal flora was analysed twice before the study, twice during the study and four times after cefepime administration. There were no significant differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters between days 1 and 8. The following values (mean +/- S.D.) represent day 1. The maximum concentration of 72.69 +/- 12.2 mg/L immediately after infusion decreased to 0.56 +/- 0.17 mg/L after 12 h. The mean 12 h recovery in urine was 93.69 +/- 2.14%. Pharmacokinetic parameters based on an open two-compartment model were as follows (mean +/- S.D.): area under the curve, 142.65 +/- 18.35 mg.h/L; elimination half-life 110.3 +/- 8.3 min; steady state volume of distribution 16.0 +/- 1.9 L/70 kg; total clearance, 107.0 +/- 16.0 mL/min; renal clearance 103.0 +/- 15.2 mL/min. No accumulation was observed during the eight day study period with cefepime at this dosage; trough levels on days 2-7 ranged from 0.52 +/- 0.26 mg/L to 0.90 +/- 0.33 mg/L. In the cefepime treated group the following side-effects were noted: headache (5), fatigue (4), nausea/stomach ache (2), soft stool (2), transient scotoma (1). Side-effects in the placebo group were: headache (2) fatigue (3), nausea/stomach-ache (1), soft stool (2) and photophobia (1). During cefepime administration a decrease in the number of Escherichia coli and bifidobacteria in faeces was observed, whereas Bacteroides spp. and clostridia showed a slight increase. The numbers of faecal bacteria returned to normal 20 to 48 days after the study was completed.

Bacteroides↗
PubMed1993

Cefepime monotherapy for the empirical treatment of fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients.

In a pilot study, we evaluated the efficacy and the safety of cefepime, a new cephalosporin with extended-spectrum activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, as empirical monotherapy for 108 febrile episodes in 84 granulocytopenic cancer patients. Cefepime (2 g tds) was given for a minimum of 7 days or until resolution of infection. Of the 108 episodes, 91 were evaluable. Microbiologically documented infections occurred in 25 patients (27%) (18 Gram-positive, 7 Gram-negative), of whom 18 had bacteraemia. Infection was clinically documented in 47 patients (52%) and fever was unexplained in 19 (21%). Overall, 71% (65/91) of the infections resolved. Response rates were 86% (6/7) for Gram-negative infections, 44% (8/18) for Gram-positive infections (57% for cefepime-susceptible Gram-positive bacteria), 77% (36/47) for clinically documented infections and 79% (15/19) for unexplained fevers. Of the 26 patients (29%) whose primary infections did not improve with cefepime monotherapy, 23 responded after the addition of other antibiotics. Sixteen patients (18%) developed secondary infections of which 13 were microbiologically documented; Gram-positive bacteria were isolated from seven patients, Gram-negative bacteria from two, fungi from three and a virus from one. Adverse effects were mild and did not require premature discontinuation of therapy except for one patient who developed an immediate allergic reaction after the first dose of cefepime from which he recovered fully. The survival rate after resolution of granulocytopenia was 96%; three patients died of primary bacterial infection and one from secondary disseminated candidiasis. In this pilot study, cefepime monotherapy appeared safe and effective as empirical therapy for fever in cancer patients with granulocytopenia. Whether cefepime is superior to other advanced-generation cephalosporins for the treatment of Gram-positive infections will require evaluation in a larger comparative study.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

Cefepime versus cefotaxime in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections.

Patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) were randomized 2:1 to receive either cefepime 2 g i.v. bd or cefotaxime 2 g i.v. tds. Bronchopneumonia alone or associated with another LRTI was diagnosed in 30 of 37 cefepime recipients and in 11 of 18 cefotaxime recipients; other diagnoses included bronchitis, lobar pneumonia and aspiration pneumonia. The mean duration of treatment was 5.9 days in the cefepime group and 5.4 days in the cefotaxime group. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to clinical or bacteriological outcome. Treatment was associated with a satisfactory clinical response in 27 (73%) of 37 evaluable cefepime patients and in 10 (56%) of 18 evaluable cefotaxime patients. Treatment resulted in eradication of 33 (89%) of 37 pathogens in the cefepime group, including 13 of 15 strains of Staphylococcus aureus, and of 16 (73%) of 22 pathogens in the cefotaxime group, including eight of ten strains of S. aureus. Two Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains persisted in the cefotaxime group. The sole clinical adverse event reported was a rash in one cefepime patient which did not require discontinuation of treatment. No clinically relevant changes in laboratory test results were attributed to either agent. Cefepime twice daily and cefotaxime three times daily were of comparable safety and efficacy in the treatment of bronchopneumonia and other LRTIs.

Adult↗