Abstract
Three hundred ninety-four patients, aged 6 months to 12 years, entered a multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigator-blind study comparing cefdinir, 7 mg/kg of body weight twice a day, with cephalexin, 10 mg/kg four times a day, each given for 10 days. The most common infections treated were impetigo and secondary infection of preexisting dermatitis. The most common pathogens isolated were Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes. Two hundred thirty-one patients were microbiologically evaluable. Microbiologic eradication rates were 164 of 165 pathogens (99.4%) in the cefdinir group and 152 of 156 pathogens (97.4%) in the cephalexin group (P = 0.14). Clinical cure rates were 116 of 118 patients (98.3%) in the cefdinir group and 106 of 113 patients (93.8%) in the cephalexin group (P = 0.056). Sixteen percent of cefdinir patients and 11% of cephalexin patients experienced adverse events (P = 0.11), the most common being diarrhea, which affected 8% of the cefdinir group and 4% of the cephalexin group. Cefdinir appears to be an effective and well-tolerated agent for the treatment of uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections in pediatric patients.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (180.7 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Barry A. L., Fuchs P. C. In vitro activities of a streptogramin (RP59500), three macrolides, and an azalide against four respiratory tract pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 Jan;39(1):238–240. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.1.238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Briggs B. M., Jones R. N., Erwin M. E., Barrett M. S., Johnson D. M. In vitro activity evaluations of cefdinir (FK482, CI-983, and PD134393). A novel orally administered cephalosporin. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991 Sep-Oct;14(5):425–434. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(91)90069-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Faingezicht I., Bolaños H. J., Arias G., Guevara J., Ruiz M. Comparative study of cefprozil and cefaclor in children with bacterial infections of skin and skin structures. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1992 Nov;11(11):976–978. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Hanfling M. J., Hausinger S. A., Squires J. Loracarbef vs. cefaclor in pediatric skin and skin structure infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1992 Aug;11(8 Suppl):S27–S30. doi: 10.1097/00006454-199208001-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hsueh P. R., Chen H. M., Huang A. H., Wu J. J. Decreased activity of erythromycin against Streptococcus pyogenes in Taiwan. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 Oct;39(10):2239–2242. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.10.2239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meguro H., Tajima T., Abe T. [Clinical evaluation of a new oral cephem, cefdinir, in children]. Jpn J Antibiot. 1990 Aug;43(8):1442–1449. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Neu H. C., Saha G., Chin N. X. Comparative in vitro activity and beta-lactamase stability of FK482, a new oral cephalosporin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989 Oct;33(10):1795–1800. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.10.1795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Richer M., Allard S., Manseau L., Vallée F., Pak R., LeBel M. Suction-induced blister fluid penetration of cefdinir in healthy volunteers following ascending oral doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 May;39(5):1082–1086. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.5.1082. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tunnessen W. W., Jr A survey of skin disorders seen in pediatric general and dermatology clinics. Pediatr Dermatol. 1984 Jan;1(3):219–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1470.1984.tb01120.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]