Search

We report a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction to cefadroxil in a 60-year old female with no previous history of allergies to penicillins. Cefadroxil is a first-generation cephalosporin and anaphylactic reactions to it in patients with no previous history of penicillin allergy are very rare. Since cefadroxil is a commonly prescribed antibiotic for both adults and children in the Caribbean, an appropriate level of caution should be exercised in its use even with no reported history of previous allergies to the penicillin class of medications.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of administration of cefovecin, compared with cefadroxil, for treatment of naturally occurring secondary superficial pyoderma, abscesses, and infected wounds in dogs., Design: Multicenter, randomized, positive-controlled clinical trial., Animals: 235 client-owned dogs., Procedures: Dogs with clinical signs of skin infection confirmed via bacteriologic culture were randomly allocated to receive a single SC injection of cefovecin (8 mg/kg [3.6 mg/lb]) followed by placebo administered PO twice daily for 14 days or cefadroxil (22 mg/kg [10 mg/lb]) administered PO twice daily for 14 days following a placebo injection. Two 14-day treatment courses were permitted. Treatment success was defined as reduction of clinical signs to mild or absent at the final assessment., Results: Clinical efficacy achieved with cefovecin in dogs was equivalent to that observed with cefadroxil. At the final assessment, 14 days following the completion of treatment (on day 28 or 42), 92.4% (109/118) of the cefovecin group and 92.3% (108/117) of the cefadroxil group were treatment successes. There were no serious adverse events or deaths related to treatment., Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: A single cefovecin injection (8 mg/kg) administered SC, which could be repeated once after 14 days, was safe and effective against naturally occurring skin infections in dogs and as effective as cefadroxil administered PO twice daily for 14 or 28 days.

Background: Linezolid, an oxazolidinone, is effective in the treatment of adults and children with community-acquired and nosocomial pneumonia and uncomplicated and complicated skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs), including infections caused by Gram-positive resistant pathogens. Because of the increasing use of linezolid, it is important to review the common adverse events (AEs) associated with its use in children with the use of data from clinical trials., Objective: The safety and tolerability of linezolid in pediatric patients with Gram-positive infections were determined in four pediatric clinical studies. Study I included pediatric patients with community-acquired pneumonia; Study II included otitis media; Study III included SSSIs; and Study IV included complicated SSSIs, nosocomial pneumonia and bacteremia., Methods: Studies I and II had no comparator arm. Study III was randomized and compared linezolid with cefadroxil. Study IV also was randomized and compared linezolid with vancomycin. Patients <12 years of age received linezolid 10 mg/kg; patients age 12 years and older received 600 mg (intravenous/oral). Dosing frequency (two to three times daily) varied depending on age and clinical diagnosis. The primary safety endpoints were AEs, drug-related AEs, serious AEs and selected laboratory tests., Results: In the 4 studies 958 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. In the linezolid vs. cefadroxil study (Study III), the most common AEs in patients treated with linezolid were diarrhea (7.8%), headache (6.5%) and upper respiratory tract infection (3.7%). In the linezolid vs. vancomycin study (Study IV), the most common AEs in the linezolid group were fever (14.1%), diarrhea (10.8%) and vomiting (9.4%). The most common drug-related AEs for linezolid in all 4 studies were diarrhea, vomiting, loose stools and nausea. None of these common AEs or drug-related AEs occurred more frequently in patients treated with linezolid than in those in the comparator group., Conclusions: Linezolid was safe and well-tolerated in pediatric patients with community-acquired pneumonia, otitis media, SSSIs and infections caused by Gram-positive resistant pathogens.

In this multicenter, investigator-blind trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of azithromycin and cefadroxil for the treatment of uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs). A total of 296 patients were randomized to receive either azithromycin (500 mg on day 1, followed by 250 mg once a day on days 2 to 5) or cefadroxil (500 mg twice a day for 10 days). Outpatients, ranging in age from 18 to 75 years, with acute uncomplicated SSSIs were enrolled in the study. Clinical and bacteriologic response was assessed between days 10 and 13 (primary end point) and between days 28 and 32. In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, clinical success rates assessed between days 10 and 13 were 97% (111/114) for azithromycin and 96% (101/105) for cefadroxil (P = .717). For azithromycin and cefadroxil, corresponding rates of bacteriologic eradication for Staphylococcus aureus were 94% (64/68) and 86% (60/70), respectively, and for Streptococcus pyogenes, 80% (4/5) and 100% (6/6), respectively. Clinical success rates assessed between days 28 and 32 were 100% (82/82) for azithromycin compared with 90% (75/83) for cefadroxil (P = .007). Corresponding rates of eradication for S aureus were 100% (59/59) versus 89% (56/63), respectively; and for S pyogenes, 100% (4/4) versus 83% (5/6), respectively. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the 2 treatment groups. However, 5 of the 139 patients (4%) in the cefadroxil group discontinued therapy because of treatment-related adverse events compared with none of the 152 patients in the azithromycin group (P = .02). Five-day therapy with azithromycin was as effective as 10-day therapy with cefadroxil for treating uncomplicated SSSIs.

Background: Infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are becoming increasingly prevalent. Linezolid is effective and well-tolerated in the treatment of adults with MRSA infections., Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of iv/oral linezolid in children with MRSA infections., Methods: Data were obtained from two independent clinical trials. In an outpatient trial children (5 to 17 years of age) with uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs) were treated with linezolid or cefadroxil. In an inpatient trial hospitalized children (0 to 11 years of age) with pneumonia, bacteremia or complicated SSSI caused by resistant Gram-positive pathogens were administered iv linezolid with the option to switch to oral suspension (patients >90 days of age) or iv vancomycin. A subset of patients with MRSA infections from the two clinical trials is analyzed herein., Results: In the outpatient trial children with skin infections caused by MRSA were treated with linezolid (15 patients) and cefadroxil (10 patients). In the microbiologically evaluable population, the clinical cure rate was 92.3% in the linezolid group and 85.7% in the cefadroxil group (P = 0.64). The pathogen eradication rate for MRSA was 92.3 and 85.7% in the linezolid and cefadroxil groups, respectively (P = 0.64). There were very few adverse events or drug-related adverse events and no serious adverse events in the outpatient trial. In the inpatient trial 20 children treated with linezolid and 14 treated with vancomycin had infections caused by MRSA. In the microbiologically evaluable population, the clinical cure rate was 94.1% in the linezolid group and 90.0% in the vancomycin group (P = 0.69). Pathogen eradication rates were 88.2 and 90.0% for the linezolid and vancomycin groups, respectively (P = 0.89). Susceptibility patterns of the MRSA isolates showed distinct patterns between the outpatient and inpatient trials. In the inpatient trial fewer patients in the linezolid group had drug-related adverse events than did those in the vancomycin group (20% vs. 43%; P = 0.15)., Conclusions: Intravenous/oral linezolid is effective and well-tolerated in children with MRSA infections.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose, long-term cefadroxil prophylaxis in preventing recurrent urinary tract infections in children. A prospective, randomized trial in 33 children (32 female, 1 male) aged 2-14 years (mean 8.1+/-2.8) was conducted. Children with recurrent urinary tract infections were commenced to six-month prophylaxis with cefadroxil at the dosage of 12.5-15.0 mg/kg at bedtime administered every night (group I, n=15) or alternate night (group II, n=18). Escherichia coli was the most frequently isolated agent (90.9%), followed by Proteus mirabilis (3.0%) and Klebsiella oxytoca (3.0%) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (3.0%). Cefadroxil prophylaxis was effective in 80% of patients in group I and in 78% patients in group II. Reinfection occurred in 3/15 (20%) patients in-group I and in 4/18 (22.2%) patients in-group II (odds ratio--1.14; 95% confidence interval--0.16-8.3). The difference of reinfection rate between the groups was not significant (p=0.88). The rate of day- and night-time wetting in both groups before prophylaxis of urinary tract infections was high. It decreased significantly at the end of prophylactic treatment with cefadroxil (from 42.4% to 9.1% and from 39.4% to 6.1% respectively). Mild adverse reaction (nausea) was observed in 1/33 patient. In conclusion our study shows that cefadroxil is an effective, well-tolerated and safe agent in the urinary tract infections prophylaxis. Prophylaxis of recurrent urinary tract infections in children with cefadroxil on alternate night regimen might reduce the cost of the treatment.

Fifty-five adult patients with acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis were investigated in an open, prospective, randomized comparative study in which 31 patients were allocated to receive 1000 mg cefetamet pivoxil twice daily (or 2000 mg once daily) and 24 to receive 1000 mg cefadroxil twice daily, given orally for 10 to 15 days. Both groups were comparable for age, sex and body weight. Clinical signs and symptoms, i.e. flank tenderness, dysuria, urgency and pyuria, subsided somewhat more rapidly with cefetamet pivoxil, while defervescence was obtained by Day 3 +/- 1 in both groups. Twenty-nine of the cefetamet pivoxil patients were assessed bacteriologically. The pathogens isolated prior to treatment were E. coli (22), Proteus mirabilis (5), P. vulgaris (1) and P. stuartii (1). All 29 patients had sterile urine at treatment end. In the 22 assessable patients in the cefadroxil group, the pathogens isolated before treatment were E. coli (17), P. mirabilis (3), and K. pneumoniae (2). Six patients had relapsed at treatment end (5 E. coli and 1 P. mirabilis). Patients were re-assessed at follow-up, usually 2 to 4 weeks after the end of treatment. Four of the 29 patients in the cefetamet pivoxil group showed relapse (3 E. coli and 1 P. mirabilis) as did a further 3 in the cefadroxil group (2 E. coli and 1 P. mirabilis). The overall therapeutic outcome was considered as successful, i.e. cure or improvement, in 89.7% of the cefetamet pivoxil patients and 72.7% of those who had received cefadroxil. Tolerability was satisfactory for both trial drugs and there were only a few mild to moderately severe adverse events reported.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)