Dermatology
Pharmacology and Treatment
Clinical Comparison of Cefuroxime Axetil, Cephalexin and Cefadroxil in the Treatment of Patients with Primary Infections of the Skin or Skin StructuresGooch III W.M.a · Kaminester L.b · Cole G.W.c · Binder R.d · Morman M.R.e · Swinehart J.M.f · Wisniewski M.g · Yilmaz H.M.g · Collins J.J.gaPrimary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah; b840 US Highway One, North Palm Beach, Fla.; cVeterans Administration Medical Center, Long Beach, Calif.; dNorth County Dermatology, Inc., Oceanside, Calif.; e47 Orient Way, Rutherford, N.J.; fColorado Medical Research Center, Denver, Colo.; gGlaxo Inc., Research Triangle Park, N.C., USA
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: September 18, 1990
Accepted: January 18, 1991
Published online: October 08, 2009
Issue release date: 1991
Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0
ISSN: 1018-8665 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9832 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/DRM
Abstract
This study was designed to compare the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of three oral cephalosporins, cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil, in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate infections of the skin or skin structures. A total of 330 patients were enrolled at 10 centers and were randomly assigned to receive cefuroxime axetil 250 mg (n = 107), cephalexin 500 mg (n = 111) or cefadroxil 500 mg (n = 112), twice daily for 10 days. Patients were assessed for their clinical and bacteriological responses once during treatment (3–5 days) and twice after treatment (1–3 and 10–14 days). A total of 353 bacterial isolates were obtained: Staphylococcus aureus (41%) Staphylococcus epidermidis (33%) and Streptococcus pyogenes (5%). A satisfactory clinical outcome (cure or improvement) was achieved in 97% (89/92) 89% (80/90) and 94% (82/87) of the clinically evaluable patients treated with cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin or cefadroxil, respectively (p = 0.047, cefuroxime axetil vs. cephalexin). With respect to the eradication of the bacterial pathogens, a satisfactory outcome (cure or presumed cure) was obtained in 96% (69/72), 85% (60/71) and 93% (63/68) of bacteriologically evaluable patients treated with cefuroxime axetil, cephalexin and cefadroxil, respectively (p = 0.026, cefuroxime axetil vs. cephalexin). All three study drugs were well tolerated, with adverse events affecting the gastrointestinal system most commonly reported. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in the incidence of drug-related adverse events.
© 1991 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
Article / Publication Details
Received: September 18, 1990
Accepted: January 18, 1991
Published online: October 08, 2009
Issue release date: 1991
Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0
ISSN: 1018-8665 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9832 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/DRM
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
