Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1978 Feb;13(2):255–260. doi: 10.1128/aac.13.2.255

Prospective Comparison of Cefoxitin and Cefazolin in Infections Caused by Aerobic Bacteria

Marc Gurwith 1, William Albritton 1, Beverley Lank 1, Godfrey Harding 2, Allan Ronald 2
PMCID: PMC352223  PMID: 348096

Abstract

Intravenous cefazolin and cefoxitin were compared in a prospective randomized trial in infections where the suspected pathogen was expected to be susceptible to both antibiotics. In the cefazolin group (12 patients) the diagnosis was pneumonia in 4, including 2 with pneumococcal bacteremia, soft tissue infection in 5, Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in 1, acute pyelonephritis in 1, and disseminated gonococcal infection in 1. In the cefoxitin group (10 patients) the diagnosis was pneumonia in 4, including 2 with pneumococcal bacteremia, soft tissue infection in 4, acute pyelonephritis in 1, and disseminated gonococcal infection in 1. In the cefazolin group receiving an evaluable course of therapy, a good clinical response was seen in 10 of 11 patients, and a bacteriological response was seen in 5 of 7. Cefazolin failed to eradicate S. aureus bacteremia in 1 patient and S. aureus in a skin ulcer of another patient. All 10 cefoxitin patients had good clinical and bacteriological responses, but in 1 patient S. aureus colonization of a postoperative wound recurred after discontinuation of the drug. Side effects in both groups included skin rash, phlebitis, and elevation of the serum alkaline phosphatase. Both cefoxitin and cefazolin appeared effective in infections caused by susceptible aerobic pathogens with the possible exception of S. aureus, although all 11 strains of S. aureus isolated in this study were susceptible in vitro to both antibiotics. Cefoxitin appeared to be equivalent to cefazolin in efficacy and occurrence of side effects.

Full text

PDF
255

Selected References

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

  1. Bauer A. W., Kirby W. M., Sherris J. C., Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol. 1966 Apr;45(4):493–496. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bryant R. E., Alford R. H. Unsuccessful treatment of staphylococcal endocarditis with cefazolin. JAMA. 1977 Feb 7;237(6):569–570. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Eickhoff T. C., Ehret J. M. In vitro comparison of cefoxitin, cefamandole, cephalexin, and cephalothin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Jun;9(6):994–999. doi: 10.1128/aac.9.6.994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Farrar W. E., Jr, Gramling P. K. Antistaphylococcal activity and beta-lactamase resistance of newer cephalosporins. J Infect Dis. 1976 Jun;133(6):691–695. doi: 10.1093/infdis/133.6.691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Heseltine P. N., Busch D. F., Meyer R. D., Finegold S. M. Cefoxitin: clinical evaluation in thirty-eight patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1977 Mar;11(3):427–434. doi: 10.1128/aac.11.3.427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hodges G. R., Saslaw S. Experiences with cefazolin: a new cephalosporin antibiotic. Am J Med Sci. 1973 Jan;265(1):23–32. doi: 10.1097/00000441-197301000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Madhavan T., Quinn E. L., Freimer E., Fisher E. J., Cox F., Burch K., Pohlod D. Clinical studies of cefazolin and comparison with other cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1973 Nov;4(5):525–531. doi: 10.1128/aac.4.5.525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Quinn E. L., Pohlod D., Madhavan T., Burch K., Fisher E., Cox F. Clinical experiences with cefazolin and other cephalosporins in bacterial endocarditis. J Infect Dis. 1973 Oct;128(Suppl):S386–S389. doi: 10.1093/infdis/128.supplement_2.s386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Regamey C., Libke R. D., Engelking E. R., Clarke J. T., Kirby M. M. Inactivation of cefazolin, cephaloridine, and cephalothin by methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis. 1975 Mar;131(3):291–294. doi: 10.1093/infdis/131.3.291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sabath L. D., Garner C., Wilcox C., Finland M. Susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis to 65 antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Jun;9(6):962–969. doi: 10.1128/aac.9.6.962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sutter V. L., Finegold S. M. Susceptibility of Anaerobic bacteria to carbenicillin, cefoxitin, and related drugs. J Infect Dis. 1975 Apr;131(4):417–422. doi: 10.1093/infdis/131.4.417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Tally F. P., Jacobus N. V., Bartlett J. G., Gorbach S. L. Susceptibility of anaerobes to cefoxitin and other cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1975 Feb;7(2):128–132. doi: 10.1128/aac.7.2.128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Verbist L. Comparison of the antibacterial activity of nine cephalosporins against Enterobacteriaceae and nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Oct;10(4):657–663. doi: 10.1128/aac.10.4.657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES