Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1996 Jun;40(6):1545–1547. doi: 10.1128/aac.40.6.1545

Activity of once-daily cefpodoxime regimens against Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae with an in vitro pharmacodynamic chamber model.

M W Garrison 1, C L Malone 1, J E Eiland 1
PMCID: PMC163366  PMID: 8726036

Abstract

To characterize the in vitro effectiveness of once-daily dosing with cefpodoxime against Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae infections, an in vitro pharmacodynamic chamber model was used to compare the bacterial killing activities of three cefpodoxime regimens: 100 mg twice daily (BID), 200 mg once daily (QD), and 400 mg QD. At the end of 24 h, the regrowth of H. influenzae isolates in the QD regimens was of concern, and the total logarithmic reduction was greatest in the BID regimen (3.1 log). Against S. pneumoniae isolates, the largest reductions in bacterial counts were observed in the 100-mg BID (5.5 log) and 400-mg QD (4.0 log) regimens. These data suggest that 400 mg of cefpodoxime given QD may have a role in the therapy of infections involving S. pneumoniae isolates.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (234.0 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Asmar B. I., Dajani A. S., Del Beccaro M. A., Mendelman P. M. Comparison of cefpodoxime proxetil and cefixime in the treatment of acute otitis media in infants and children. Otitis Study Group. Pediatrics. 1994 Dec;94(6 Pt 1):847–852. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergogne-Berezin E. Cefpodoxime proxetil in upper respiratory tract infections. Drugs. 1991;42 (Suppl 3):25–33. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199100423-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Borin M. T. A review of the pharmacokinetics of cefpodoxime proxetil. Drugs. 1991;42 (Suppl 3):13–21. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199100423-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chocas E. C., Paap C. M., Godley P. J. Cefpodoxime proxetil: a new, broad-spectrum, oral cephalosporin. Ann Pharmacother. 1993 Nov;27(11):1369–1377. doi: 10.1177/106002809302701111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Craig W. A., Andes D. R. Parenteral versus oral antibiotic therapy. Med Clin North Am. 1995 May;79(3):497–508. doi: 10.1016/s0025-7125(16)30052-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dabernat H., Avril J. L., Boussougant Y. In-vitro activity of cefpodoxime against pathogens responsible for community-acquired respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990 Dec;26 (Suppl E):1–6. doi: 10.1093/jac/26.suppl_e.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ebert S. C., Craig W. A. Pharmacodynamic properties of antibiotics: application to drug monitoring and dosage regimen design. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990 Jun;11(6):319–326. doi: 10.1086/646178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Frampton J. E., Brogden R. N., Langtry H. D., Buckley M. M. Cefpodoxime proxetil. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential. Drugs. 1992 Nov;44(5):889–917. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199244050-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fung-Tomc J. C., Huczko E., Stickle T., Minassian B., Kolek B., Denbleyker K., Bonner D., Kessler R. Antibacterial activities of cefprozil compared with those of 13 oral cephems and 3 macrolides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 Feb;39(2):533–538. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.2.533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Garrison M. W., Vance-Bryan K., Larson T. A., Toscano J. P., Rotschafer J. C. Assessment of effects of protein binding on daptomycin and vancomycin killing of Staphylococcus aureus by using an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Oct;34(10):1925–1931. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.10.1925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Geddes A. M. Cefpodoxime proxetil in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections. Drugs. 1991;42 (Suppl 3):34–40. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199100423-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nicolau D. P., Quintiliani R., Nightingale C. H. Antibiotic kinetics and dynamics for the clinician. Med Clin North Am. 1995 May;79(3):477–495. doi: 10.1016/s0025-7125(16)30051-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rodman D. P., McKnight J. T., Anderson R. L. A critical review of the new oral cephalosporins. Considerations and place in therapy. Arch Fam Med. 1994 Nov;3(11):975–980. doi: 10.1001/archfami.3.11.975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Schentag J. J., Nix D. E., Adelman M. H. Mathematical examination of dual individualization principles (I): Relationships between AUC above MIC and area under the inhibitory curve for cefmenoxime, ciprofloxacin, and tobramycin. DICP. 1991 Oct;25(10):1050–1057. doi: 10.1177/106002809102501003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Vogelman B., Gudmundsson S., Leggett J., Turnidge J., Ebert S., Craig W. A. Correlation of antimicrobial pharmacokinetic parameters with therapeutic efficacy in an animal model. J Infect Dis. 1988 Oct;158(4):831–847. doi: 10.1093/infdis/158.4.831. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES