Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1993 Apr 1;148(7):1161–1169.

Comparison of cefoxitin and ceftizoxime in a hospital therapeutic interchange program.

S Martinusen 1, D Chen 1, L Frighetto 1, D Bunz 1, H G Stiver 1, P J Jewesson 1
PMCID: PMC1490879  PMID: 8457957

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether (a) ceftizoxime can replace cefoxitin in the prevention and treatment of various infections in a major teaching hospital, (b) a previously applied two-stage intervention program is an effective method of instituting a therapeutic interchange of ceftizoxime for cefoxitin and (c) the replacement of cefoxitin with ceftizoxime results in a more cost-effective therapy. DESIGN: Two-phase, open, sequential study. SETTING: Tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred patients who received cefoxitin during the 6 months immediately before the start of the interchange program (phase 1) and 100 who received ceftizoxime during the 6 months immediately after the start of the program (phase 2) were randomly selected. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of the two patient groups were similar except for sex (p < 0.05). The cefoxitin doses were usually given every 6 hours (in 33% of the cases) or every 8 hours (in 61%), whereas the ceftizoxime doses were usually given every 12 hours (in 98%). Prescriber distribution was stable throughout the study period, the Department of General Surgery being responsible for about 70% of the orders. Prophylactic indications accounted for over 60% of the treatment courses. The proportion of prophylactic treatment courses that resulted in a successful clinical outcome did not differ between the two groups (cefoxitin 92% and ceftizoxime 91%). Of the empiric or directed treatment courses clinical success or improvement was observed in 89% of the cefoxitin and 91% of the ceftizoxime recipients. Microbiologic eradication was seen in 65% of the cefoxitin and 90% of the ceftizoxime directed treatment courses. Pathogens isolated during therapy were similar in the two treatment groups. Diarrhea was the most common adverse effect, occurring in 8% of the cefoxitin and 10% of the ceftizoxime recipients; no Clostridium difficile or C.-difficile-producing toxin was identified in these patients. The ceftizoxime therapy was 36% less expensive than the cefoxitin therapy on average, and the annual savings was estimated to be $83,123. An estimated 5615 drug doses were avoided annually, for an additional savings of $24,875 in drug administration. Therefore, the total estimated annual cost savings resulting from this two-stage interchange program was $107,998. Given the cost of $4856 to implement and maintain the program, the estimated net savings for the first year was $103,142. CONCLUSION: Ceftizoxime can replace cefoxitin in the prevention and treatment of various infections. The form of evaluation described herein is valuable when any formulary modification is being considered in a hospital.

Full text

PDF
1161

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bourgault A. M., Lamothe F., Hoban D. J., Dalton M. T., Kibsey P. C., Harding G., Smith J. A., Low D. E., Gilbert H. Survey of Bacteroides fragilis group susceptibility patterns in Canada. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992 Feb;36(2):343–347. doi: 10.1128/aac.36.2.343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bunz D., Gupta S., Jewesson P. Metronidazole cost containment: a two-stage intervention. Hosp Formul. 1990 Nov;25(11):1167-9, 1177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Drusano G. L., Warren J. W., Saah A. J., Caplan E. S., Tenney J. H., Hansen S., Granados J., Standiford H. C., Miller E. H., Jr A prospective randomized controlled trial of cefoxitin versus clindamycin-aminoglycoside in mixed anaerobic-aerobic infections. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1982 May;154(5):715–720. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gupta S., Bachand R. L., Jewesson P. J. Impact of a two-stage intervention program on cefazolin usage at a major teaching hospital. Hosp Formul. 1989 Jan;24(1):41-4, 46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gupta S., Bachand R. L., Jewesson P. J. Unique two-stage intervention to modify prescribing trends. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1988 Sep;22(9):726–727. doi: 10.1177/106002808802200926. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gutensohn A., Bunz D., Frighetto L., Jewesson P. Outcome of a ceftriaxone/cefotaxime interchange programme in a major teaching hospital. Chemotherapy. 1991;37 (Suppl 3):15–21. doi: 10.1159/000238928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Harding G. K., Nicolle L. E., Haase D. A., Aoki F. Y., Stiver H. G., Blanchard R. J., Kirkpatrick J. R. Prospective, randomized, comparative trials in the therapy for intraabdominal and female genital tract infections. Rev Infect Dis. 1984 Mar-Apr;6 (Suppl 1):S283–S292. doi: 10.1093/clinids/6.supplement_1.s283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hemsell D. L., Bawdon R. E., Hemsell P. G., Nobles B. J., Johnson E. R., Heard M. C. Single-dose cephalosporin for prevention of major pelvic infection after vaginal hysterectomy: cefazolin versus cefoxitin versus cefotaxime. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987 May;156(5):1201–1205. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(87)90144-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hughes C. E., Johnson C. C., Bamberger D. M., Reinhardt J. F., Peterson L. R., Mulligan M. E., Gerding D. N., George W. L., Finegold S. M. Treatment and long-term follow-up of foot infections in patients with diabetes or ischemia: a randomized, prospective, double-blind comparison of cefoxitin and ceftizoxime. Clin Ther. 1987;10 (Suppl A):36–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jewesson P. J., Chow A. W. Dealing with the misuse of antibiotics in the hospital. Can Med Assoc J. 1983 May 1;128(9):1061–1062. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kaiser A. B. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. N Engl J Med. 1986 Oct 30;315(18):1129–1138. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198610303151805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kaiser A. B., Herrington J. L., Jr, Jacobs J. K., Mulherin J. L., Jr, Roach A. C., Sawyers J. L. Cefoxitin versus erythromycin, neomycin, and cefazolin in colorectal operations. Importance of the duration of the surgical procedure. Ann Surg. 1983 Oct;198(4):525–530. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198310000-00012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Knaus W. A., Draper E. A., Wagner D. P., Zimmerman J. E. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985 Oct;13(10):818–829. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lou M. A., Chen D. F., Bansal M., Balasubramaniam S., Thadepalli H. Evaluation of ceftizoxime in acute peritonitis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1982 Nov;10 (Suppl 100):183–189. doi: 10.1093/jac/10.suppl_c.183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Maki D. G., Aughey D. R. Comparative study of cefazolin, cefoxitin, and ceftizoxime for surgical prophylaxis in colo-rectal surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1982 Nov;10 (Suppl 100):281–287. doi: 10.1093/jac/10.suppl_c.281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mandell L. A., Bergeron M. G., Ronald A. R., Vega C., Harding G., Saginur R., Feld R., Duperval R., Landis S. J., Miedzinski L. J. Once-daily therapy with ceftriaxone compared with daily multiple-dose therapy with cefotaxime for serious bacterial infections: a randomized, double-blind study. J Infect Dis. 1989 Sep;160(3):433–441. doi: 10.1093/infdis/160.3.433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Shalansky S., Gupta S., Jewesson P. Impact of a practical two-stage intervention on aminoglycoside usage. Hosp Formul. 1989 Jun;24(6):332-6, 339-41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Tally F. P., McGowan K., Kellum J. M., Gorbach S. L., O'Donnell T. F. A randomized comparison of cefoxitin with or without amikacin and clindamycin plus amikacin in surgical sepsis. Ann Surg. 1981 Mar;193(3):318–323. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198103000-00011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Zaremba C. D., Bachand R. L., Chow A. W., Jewesson P. J. Drug usage review of cefamandole at a teaching hospital. Can J Hosp Pharm. 1988 Aug;41(4):195-99, 214. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES