Phase II clinical study of BC-3781, a pleuromutilin antibiotic, in treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

This study investigated the potential of the novel systemic pleuromutilin antibiotic BC-3781 to treat patients with an acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) caused by a Gram-positive pathogen. Patients were randomized to intravenous BC-3781 100 mg, BC-3781 150 mg, or vancomycin 1 g every 12 h. Response to treatment was assessed daily and at test of cure (TOC). The primary endpoint was the clinical success rate at TOC in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) analysis populations. Baseline characteristics, including the frequency of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), were comparable between the different treatment groups. Of 210 patients randomized, 186 (88.6%) patients completed the study. Clinical success at TOC in the CE population occurred in 54 (90.0%) patients in the BC-3781 100-mg group, 48 (88.9%) in the BC-3781 150-mg group, and 47 (92.2%) in the vancomycin group. At day 3, the clinical response rate was similar across the three treatment groups. Six patients discontinued study medication following an adverse event. The incidence rate for drug-related adverse events was lower for patients receiving BC-3781 (34.3% and 39.4% in the 100-mg and 150-mg groups, respectively) than those receiving vancomycin (53.0%). When BC-3781 was used to treat ABSSSIs caused by a Gram-positive pathogen, including MRSA, clinical success rates were comparable to those of the comparator, vancomycin. BC-3781 was generally well tolerated. These results provide the first proof of concept for the systemic use of a pleuromutilin antibiotic for the treatment of ABSSSIs.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in Japan. METHODS: Patients with nosocomial pneumonia, complicated skin and soft-tissue infections or sepsis caused by MRSA were randomized to receive linezolid (600 mg every 12 h) or vancomycin (1 g every 12 h). RESULTS: One hundred patients received linezolid and 51 received vancomycin with outcomes evaluated at the end of therapy (EOT) and at the follow-up (FU), 7-14 days later. At EOT, clinical success rates in the MRSA microbiologically evaluable population were 62.9% and 50.0% for the linezolid and vancomycin groups, respectively; and microbiological eradication rates were 79.0% and 30.0% in the two groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). At FU, the clinical success rates were 36.7% for both groups and the microbiological eradication rates were 46.8% and 36.7%, respectively. Reversible anaemia (13%) and thrombocytopenia (19%) were reported more frequently in linezolid patients; laboratory analysis showed mild decrease in platelet counts with full recovery by FU. The mean platelet count in linezolid patients with thrombocytopenia was 101,000/mm(3). Significantly low platelet counts (<50,000/mm(3)) were observed more frequently in patients receiving vancomycin than in linezolid patients (6% versus 3%). Mean changes in haemoglobin levels between the two groups were not different. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid is as effective as vancomycin for the treatment of MRSA infections and may be more effective than vancomycin in achieving microbiological eradication. Haematological adverse events were reported more frequently in linezolid-treated patients; analysis of laboratory data showed a mild reversible trend towards lower platelet counts.

Randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing clinafloxacin with imipenem as empirical monotherapy for febrile granulocytopenic patients.

In a double-blind, multicenter trial, 541 febrile granulocytopenic patients were randomized to receive either intravenous (iv) clinafloxacin (200 mg every 12 h) or i.v. imipenem (500 mg every 6 h) as empirical monotherapy. More baseline pathogens were susceptible to clinafloxacin (259 [99%] of 262 organisms) than to imipenem (253 [95%] of 265; P=.03). Initial favorable clinical response rates for clinafloxacin (88 [32%] of 272 patients) and imipenem (89 [33%] of 269) were similar. After addition of other antimicrobial agents, overall response rates were 259 (95%) of 272 for clinafloxacin and 251 (93%) of 269 for imipenem. During the study, only 13 clinafloxacin (5%) and 18 imipenem (7%) recipients died. Both drugs were generally well tolerated. Drug-related skin rash occurred more often with clinafloxacin (11% vs. 6%; P=.07), whereas nausea (2% vs. 5%; P=.16), Clostridium-difficile-associated diarrhea (3% vs. 8%; P=.02), and seizures (0% vs. 2%; P=.06) occurred more often with imipenem. These results suggest that clinafloxacin and imipenem have similar efficacy as empirical monotherapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients.

Clinafloxacin versus piperacillin-tazobactam in treatment of patients with severe skin and soft tissue infections.

Patients (n = 409) with severe skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) were randomized to receive clinafloxacin or piperacillin-tazobactam (plus optional vancomycin for methicillin-resistant cocci), administered intravenously, with the option to switch to oral medication. Most patients had cellulitis, wound infections, or diabetic foot infections. Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the most common baseline pathogens. Fewer baseline pathogens were resistant to clinafloxacin (1.8%) than to piperacillin-tazobactam (6.2%) (P = 0.001). The clinafloxacin and piperacillin-tazobactam groups did not differ significantly in clinical cure rates (68.8 and 65.2%, respectively) or microbiologic eradication rates (61.5 and 57.2%). Clinafloxacin yielded higher eradication rates for all three of the most common pathogenic species, although no differences were statistically significant. Within the power of this study, the overall frequency of adverse events was similar (P = 0.577) in the two treatment groups. Drug-associated adverse events (P = 0.050) and treatment discontinuations (P = 0.052) were marginally more frequent in the clinafloxacin group, primarily due to phototoxicity in outpatients receiving clinafloxacin. Although most cases of phototoxicity were mild to moderate, four cases were reported as severe. In summary, clinafloxacin monotherapy was equivalent in effectiveness to therapy with piperacillin-tazobactam plus optional vancomycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe SSTIs.

A comparison of a five-day regimen of cefdinir with a seven-day regimen of loracarbef for the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis.

To compare the efficacy and safety of five-day cefdinir treatment with seven-day loracarbef treatment in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, 586 patients were enrolled in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial. Patients received either five days of treatment with cefdinir (n = 291) at 300 mg twice daily or seven days of treatment with loracarbef (n = 295) at 400 mg twice daily. Microbiological assessments were done on sputum specimens obtained at admission and at the two post-therapy visits, if available. The clinical cure rates were 86% (138/160) and 85% (141/166) for the evaluable patients treated with cefdinir and loracarbef, respectively. Respiratory tract pathogens were isolated from 457 (78%) of 586 admission sputum specimens, with the predominant pathogens being Haemophilus parainfluenzae, H. influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis and Staphylococcus aureus. The microbiological eradication rates at the test-of-cure visit were 88% (193/219 pathogens) and 90% (227/251 pathogens) for the evaluable patients treated with cefdinir and loracarbef, respectively. Adverse event rates while on treatment were 30% and 21% for cefdinir- and loracarbef-treated patients, respectively. These results indicate that a five-day regimen of cefdinir is effective and safe for the treatment of patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis.

Cefdinir versus cefaclor in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study was conducted in Europe, South Africa, and Australia to compare the clinical and microbiologic efficacy and the tolerability of a cephalosporin antibiotic, cefdinir, with those of cefaclor in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection. METHODS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 5 days of treatment with either cefdinir 100 mg BID or cefaclor 250 mg TID. RESULTS: A total of 661 patients were randomized to treatment. They were 90% female, with a median age of 44 years. There were no clinically important differences between groups in terms of demographic characteristics or symptoms on admission. The most frequently isolated pathogens in admission urine cultures were Escherichia coli (383 patients), Proteus mirabilis (20 patients), Staphylococcus saprophyticus (14 patients), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (9 patients). Of the admission pathogens with documented susceptibility results, significantly more were resistant to cefaclor (6.7%) than to cefdinir (3.7%; P < 0.003). Significantly more admission isolates of E. coli were resistant to cefaclor (5.1%) than to cefdinir (2.0%; P < 0.007). A total of 383 patients were assessable for efficacy, 196 in the cefdinir group and 187 in the cefaclor group. Clinical cure rates and microbiologic response rates for cefdinir and cefaclor were statistically equivalent at 5 to 9 days posttherapy (test-of-cure visit), using a 95% CI approach. The rate of treatment-related adverse events was higher in cefdinir-treated patients (20.2%) than in cefaclor-treated patients (13.0%; P = 0.025), mainly due to the greater frequency of diarrhea in the former group. However, only 4 patients (1.2%) discontinued cefdinir treatment due to diarrhea. CONCLUSION: Empiric therapy with cefdinir appears to be a reasonable choice for patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infection in whom cephalosporin treatment is indicated.

Comparison of a 5 day regimen of cefdinir with a 10 day regimen of cefprozil for treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis.

Patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis were treated with cefdinir 300 mg bd for 5 days or cefprozil 500 mg bd for 10 days in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicentre study. Of the 548 patients enrolled, 281 (51%) were evaluable. The clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit were 80% (114/142) and 72% (100/139) for the evaluable patients treated with cefdinir and cefprozil, respectively. Respiratory tract pathogens were isolated from 409 (75%) of 548 admission sputum specimens, with the predominant pathogens being Haemophilus parainfluenzae, Haemophilus influenzae, Staphylococcus aureus and Moraxella catarrhalis. The microbiological eradication rates at the test-of-cure visit were 81% (157 of 193 pathogens) and 84% (166 of 198 pathogens) for the evaluable patients treated with cefdinir and cefprozil, respectively. Adverse event rates while on treatment were equivalent between the two treatment groups. The incidence of diarrhoea during therapy was higher for patients treated with cefdinir (17%) than for patients treated with cefprozil (6%) (P < 0.01), but most cases were mild and did not lead to discontinuation of treatment. These results indicate that a 5 day regimen of cefdinir is as effective and safe in the treatment of patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis as a 10 day regimen of cefprozil.

International study comparing cefdinir and cefuroxime axetil in the treatment of patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of three antibiotic regimens in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, multicentered, parallel-group study, patients received once-daily cefdinir 600 mg, twice-daily cefdinir 300 mg, or twice-daily cefuroxime axetil 250 mg for 10 days. Primary efficacy measures were microbiologic eradication rate, by pathogen and by patient, and clinical response rate, by patient. RESULTS: Of 1045 patients, 589 were evaluable for efficacy. At baseline, most patients had moderate or severe cough and sputum production as well as rhonchi, wheezing, and dyspnea. The microbiologic eradication rates by pathogen were 90% with once-daily cefdinir, 85% with twice-daily cefdinir, and 88% with twice-daily cefuroxime. The corresponding values for microbiologic eradication rate by patient were 90% (once-daily cefdinir), 85% (twice-daily cefdinir), and 86% (twice-daily cefuroxime). The respective clinical response rates by patient were 81%, 74%, and 80%. There were no significant differences in the incidence of drug-related adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events. Diarrhea was the most frequent complaint. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the efficacy and tolerability of cefdinir, once or twice daily, and cefuroxime were comparable with no significant differences between the regimens used.

Five-day cefdinir course vs. ten-day cefprozil course for treatment of acute otitis media.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of a 5-day cefdinir course with a 10-day cefprozil course in the treatment of pediatric acute otitis media (AOM). DESIGN: Comparative, investigator-blinded multicenter trial. SETTING: Primary care, ambulatory. PATIENTS: Children ages 6 months through 12 years with clinical symptoms and tympanic membrane signs of AOM, plus tympanometric-confirmed middle ear effusion in at least 1 ear. Of the 435 patients enrolled in the study, 373 were evaluable. INTERVENTION: Patients received cefdinir 14 mg/ kg/day divided twice a day for 5 days or cefprozil 30 mg/kg/day divided twice a day for 10 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical resolution of tympanic membrane signs and symptoms of AOM determined at end of therapy on Study Days 9 to 11. RESULTS: The clinical cure rate at end of therapy was 80% (152 of 190) for cefdinir-treated patients and 82.5% (151 of 183) for cefprozil-treated patients (95% confidence interval, 10.43% to 5.4%). Diarrhea and overall adverse reactions, respectively, occurred in 7.8 and 13% of cefdinir-treated patients and in 4.2 and 12% of cefprozil-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: A short course 5-day regimen of cefdinir was as clinically effective and well-tolerated as a 10-day regimen of cefprozil in the treatment of nonrefractory AOM.

Five-day twice daily cefdinir therapy for acute otitis media: microbiologic and clinical efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the microbiologic and clinical efficacy of a 5-day course of cefdinir in the treatment of tympanocentesis-documented acute otitis media (AOM). DESIGN: Open label noncomparative trial. SETTING: Primary care, ambulatory. PATIENTS: Children ages 6 months through 12 years with signs of AOM and middle ear effusion confirmed by tympanometry in at least one ear. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent tympanocentesis at baseline and received cefdinir 7 mg/kg twice a day for 5 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presumptive eradication of middle ear pathogens determined by clinical cure of signs and symptoms of AOM at end of therapy (Study Days 7 to 9) and Visit 3 (Study Days 16 to 21). RESULTS: A total of 125 of 177 enrolled children had 134 pathogens isolated by tympanocentesis: Streptococcus pneumoniae, 69 (51.5%); Haemophilus influenzae 44 (32.8%; beta-lactamase-positive in 18 of 44 strains); beta-lactamase-positive Moraxella catarrhalis, 15 (11.2%); and Streptococcus pyogenes, 6 (4.5%). The clinical cure rates by patient in the microbiologically and overall clinically evaluable groups, respectively, were 73% (84 of 115) and 77.4% (130 of 168) at the end of therapy visit and 57.4% (66 of 115) and 61.9% (104 of 168) at Visit 3. Presumptive eradication rates at end of therapy were 8 of 11 (72.7%) and 4 of 8 (50%) for patients with penicillin-intermediate and -resistant S. pneumoniae isolates, respectively. Adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients, with diarrhea (11%) occurring most frequently. CONCLUSIONS: A 5-day regimen of cefdinir was effective in the eradication of the common causative pathogens of nonrefractory AOM, including intermediate penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae and beta-lactamase-producing organisms. Cefdinir should be considered a suitable second line antibiotic for AOM.

Comparative safety and efficacy of cefdinir vs amoxicillin/clavulanate for treatment of suppurative acute otitis media in children.

OBJECTIVE: Two dosage regimens of cefdinir were compared with amoxicillin/clavulanate for the treatment of suppurative acute otitis media (AOM) in children. METHODS: This was an investigator-blinded, randomized, comparative, multicenter trial, in which tympanocentesis was performed in 384 patients, ages 6 months to 12 years, who had nonrefractory AOM. Patients were randomized to receive one of three 10-day treatment regimens: cefdinir 14 mg/kg daily (QD; n = 128); cefdinir 7 mg/kg twice a day (BID; n = 128); or amoxicillin/clavulanate 40/10 mg/kg/day divided for use three times a day (TID; n = 128). RESULTS: Of the 384 enrolled patients 303 were evaluable for clinical efficacy. Clinical success rates were statistically equivalent for the 3 treatment groups at the end of therapy: 85 of 102 (83.3%) for cefdinir QD; 81 of 101 (80.2%) for cefdinir BID; 86 of 100 (86%) for amoxicillin/clavulanate. Of the 197 evaluable patients from whom a susceptible pathogen was recovered, presumptive eradication rates at end of therapy were equivalent: 55 of 65 (84.6%), 54 of 66 (81.8%) and 55 of 66 (83.3%) for cefdinir QD-, cefdinir BID- and amoxicillin/clavulanate-treated patients, respectively. However, presumptive eradication rates for Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly lower for cefdinir BID (55.2%) than for amoxicillin/clavulanate (89.5%; P = 0.0019) and marginally lower than for cefdinir QD (80%; P = 0.054). Diarrhea was the most common treatment-associated adverse reaction in all groups but was significantly more common in amoxicillin/clavulanate-treated patients (35%) than in patients who had been treated with cefdinir QD (10%, P<0.001) or cefdinir BID (13%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A 10-day regimen of cefdinir 14 mg/kg QD or 7 mg/kg BID was as clinically effective overall as a 10-day regimen of amoxicillin/ clavulanate 40/10 mg/kg/day divided TID in the treatment of tympanocentesis-confirmed, nonrefractory AOM in children. These data suggest that cefdinir QD may be a better alternative than cefdinir BID for refractory AOM. Both dosing regimens of cefdinir were associated with significantly fewer gastrointestinal adverse reactions than was amoxicillin/clavulanate.

Comparison of cefdinir and penicillin for the treatment of pediatric streptococcal pharyngitis.

This multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigator-masked study was performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of cefdinir for the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis. Children aged 1 through 12 years with signs and symptoms of pharyngitis and a positive result on a rapid screening test for Streptococcus pyogenes were randomly assigned to receive cefdinir 14 mg/kg QD, cefdinir 7 mg/kg BID, or penicillin V 10 mg/kg 4 times daily for 10 days. Seven hundred ninety-two patients were enrolled, and 682 were clinically and microbiologically assessable. All treatment groups had similar demographic characteristics (-50.0% male, predominantly white, median age 7 years). The eradication rates of S pyogenes, determined 4 to 9 days after completion of therapy, were 94.3% in the cefdinir QD group, 94.3% in the cefdinir BID group, and 70.0% in the penicillin V group (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.6%-30.9%, P < 0.001 for cefdinir QD vs penicillin; CI 17.5%-30.9%, P < 0.001 for cefdinir BID vs penicillin). Clinical cure rates were 97.4%, 96.0%, and 86.3% for the cefdinir QD, cefdinir BID, and penicillin groups, respectively (CI 6.1%-15.9%, P = 0.001 for cefdinir QD vs penicillin; CI 4.6%-14.8%, P = 0.001 for cefdinir BID vs penicillin). Adverse reactions occurred in 8.3%, 8.7%, and 7.6% of cefdinir QD, cefdinir BID, and penicillin patients, respectively (P = NS). Treatment with cefdinir, either QD or BID, was associated with higher eradication rates of S pyogenes and higher clinical cure rates. Both cefdinir and penicillin were well tolerated. Three patients, 1 receiving cefdinir BID and 2 receiving penicillin, discontinued the study drug because of adverse reactions.

Comparison of cefdinir and penicillin for the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis. Cefdinir Pharyngitis Study Group.

Cefdinir, an oral cephalosporin active against Streptococcus pyogenes (group A beta-hemolytic streptococci [GABHS]), is also resistant to degradation by most oropharyngeal beta-lactamases. This multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-masked study assessed the tolerability and efficacy of 2 dosing regimens of cefdinir in the treatment of pharyngitis due to GABHS. Adults and adolescents with pharyngitis due to GABHS received cefdinir 600 mg QD, cefdinir 300 mg BID, or penicillin V 250 mg QID each for 10 days. A throat culture and clinical assessment were obtained 4 to 9 days after completion of therapy. Of 919 patients enrolled, 644 (70.1%) were microbiologically assessable. The eradication rates 4 to 9 days after completion of therapy were 91.4% in the cefdinir QD group, 91.7% in the cefdinir BID group, and 83.4% in the penicillin group (P = 0.02 for cefdinir QD vs penicillin, P = 0.01 for cefdinir BID vs penicillin, P = 0.95 for cefdinir QD vs cefdinir BID). Clinical cure rates were also superior with cefdinir QD (94.8%, P = 0.02) and cefdinir BID (96.3%, P < 0.01) compared with penicillin (88.9%). Diarrhea was more common in the cefdinir groups (P < 0.001). Seventeen cefdinir patients and 4 penicillin patients discontinued therapy because of adverse reaction (P = 0.13). Ten days of treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis with cefdinir QD or BID is superior to treatment with penicillin V for the eradication of GABHS from the pharynx, although it is associated with a higher rate of adverse reactions.

Five-day cefdinir treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis. Cefdinir Pharyngitis Study Group.

A multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigator-blind study was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral cefdinir versus oral penicillin V for the treatment of pharyngitis due to group A beta-hemolytic streptococci (GABHS). Patients 13 years of age and older were randomized to receive either oral cefdinir (300 mg twice a day) for 5 days followed by placebo for 5 days or oral penicillin V (250 mg four times a day) for 10 days. Throat cultures were obtained, and signs and symptoms of pharyngitis were recorded at study admission and follow-up visits on study days 11 to 15, 16 to 20, and 25 to 31. Patients kept a diary to record medication intake and their assessment of throat pain at admission and at each day of study treatment. Five hundred fifty-eight patients were enrolled, of whom 432 (77.4%) were clinically and microbiologically evaluable. The GABHS eradication rates 5 to 10 days after completion of therapy were 193 of 218 (88.5%) in the cefdinir group and 176 of 214 (82.2%) in the penicillin group (P = 0.053). Clinical cure rates were 89.0 and 84.6%, respectively (P = 0.80). By the time of the long-term follow-up visit, 2 to 3 weeks after completion of treatment, 156 of 191 (81.7%) of the assessable cefdinir patients and 152 of 195 (77.9%) of the penicillin patients remained free of GABHS. Both treatments were well tolerated, with adverse reaction rates of 18.3% in the cefdinir study arm and 15.0% in the penicillin study arm (P = 0.278). Five-day treatment with cefdinir is safe and effective therapy for GABHS pharyngitis. Based on its twice-a-day dosage and shorter course of therapy, leading to potentially greater patient compliance, cefdinir may be considered for use in the treatment of pharyngitis caused by GABHS.

Cefdinir versus cephalexin for the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections. The Cefdinir Adult Skin Infection Study Group.

Because of increasing resistance to older antimicrobial agents, newer drugs need to be evaluated for the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections (SSSIs). This double-masked, randomized, comparative, multicenter study enrolled patients aged 13 years or older with SSSIs to receive either cefdinir 300 mg BID or cephalexin 500 mg QID for 10 days. Nine hundred fifty-two patients (474 in the cefdinir group and 478 in the cephalexin group) took part, primarily white males between 18 and 65 years of age. There were two follow-up visits, with efficacy determined at the test-of-cure visit, 7 to 16 days posttherapy. Many patients were not microbiologically assessable, primarily because of negative cultures at study admission. Patients who required surgical intervention (e.g., incision and drainage) at the site of infection more than 24 hours after the initiation of drug therapy were defined as treatment failures. Significantly more isolated pathogens were resistant to cephalexin than to cefdinir. In the 178 efficacy-assessable cefdinir-treated patients, the rate of pathogen eradication was 93% (200/215), and the rate of successful clinical response was 88% (157/178), compared with 89% (221/247) and 87% (177/204), respectively, in the 204 efficacy-assessable cephalexin-treated patients. Using confidence-interval analysis, the microbiologic and clinical response rates of the cefdinir-treated patients were statistically equivalent to those of the cephalexin-treated patients. At the follow-up visits, patients were questioned about any adverse events occurring since their previous visit. Any untoward symptom occurring during or within 2 days after completion of drug treatment was considered an adverse reaction if the investigator judged it to be definitely, probably, or possibly related to the study drug. One hundred twenty-three (26%) cefdinir-treated patients and 77 (16%) cephalexin-treated patients experienced at least one adverse reaction, a statistically significant difference. Study drug was discontinued for adverse reactions in 20 (4%) cefdinir-treated patients and 13 (3%) cephalexin-treated patients; in the two groups, 10 and 7 patients, respectively, were discontinued for diarrhea. Cefdinir taken BID was as effective as cephalexin taken QID in the treatment of mild-to-moderate SSSIs and was well tolerated by most patients. The increased antibacterial activity of cefdinir must be balanced against the higher rate of diarrhea seen in patients treated with this drug.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of cefdinir and amoxicillin-clavulanate in treatment of acute community-acquired bacterial sinusitis. Cefdinir Sinusitis Study Group.

Cefdinir is an extended-spectrum oral cephalosporin that is active against pathogens commonly seen in acute community-acquired bacterial sinusitis (ACABS), including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Two randomized, investigator-blind, multicenter trials (one in the United States and one in Europe) compared two dosage regimens of cefdinir (600 mg once a day for 10 days and 300 mg twice a day for 10 days) to amoxicillin-clavulanate (A-C) (500 mg three times a day for 10 days) for adult and adolescent patients with ACABS. Twelve hundred twenty-nine patients entered the U.S. study, 698 with antral puncture; 569 patients entered the European study, all with antral puncture. Clinical response (cure or improvement) was determined 7 to 14 days and 3 to 5 weeks posttherapy. Microbiologic eradication rates were determined 10 to 30 days posttherapy in a subset of patients who underwent pre- and posttherapy sinus aspirate culture. Rates of adverse events and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were examined. Cefdinir, given once or twice daily, was as effective clinically (approximately 90% cure rate) as amoxicillin-clavulanate given three times daily in the treatment of ACABS. Microbiologic eradication rates were also similar in the three groups. The major side effect was mild diarrhea, occurring in approximately 20% of each group. Cefdinir caused fewer adverse events requiring treatment discontinuation.

Comparison of cefdinir and cefaclor in treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.

Six hundred ninety patients were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cefdinir with those of cefaclor in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Patients received either 10 days of treatment with cefdinir (n = 347) at 300 mg twice daily or 10 days of treatment with cefaclor (n = 343) at 500 mg three times daily. Microbiological assessments were performed on sputum specimens obtained at admission and at the two posttherapy visits, if available. Respiratory tract pathogens were isolated from 538 (78%) of 690 patient admission sputum specimens, with the predominant pathogens being Haemophilus parainfluenzae, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus. The microbiological eradication rates at the test-of-cure visit were 92% (238 of 260 pathogens) and 93% (245 of 264 pathogens) for the evaluable patients treated with cefdinir and cefaclor, respectively. A satisfactory clinical response (cure plus improvement) was achieved in 89% (166 of 187) and 86% (160 of 186) of the evaluable patients treated with cefdinir and cefaclor, respectively. Except for the incidence of diarrhea, adverse event rates while on treatment were equivalent between the two treatment groups. Diarrhea incidence during therapy was higher for patients treated with cefdinir (13.7%) than for patients treated with cefaclor (5.3%). These results indicate that cefdinir is effective and safe in the treatment of patients with pneumonia.

Study of use of cefdinir versus cephalexin for treatment of skin infections in pediatric patients. The Cefdinir Pediatric Skin Infection Study Group.

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.

A study of 5-day cefdinir treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis in children. Cefdinir Pediatric Pharyngitis Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of a 5-day regimen of cefdinir with those a conventional 10-day regimen of penicillin V for the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis in children. DESIGN: Investigator-blind, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care, ambulatory. PATIENTS: Children aged 1 to 12 years with signs and symptoms of pharyngitis and a positive result on a rapid screening test for Streptococcus pyogenes (ie, a convenience sample). Four hundred eighty-two patients were enrolled in the study, and 440 were clinically and microbiologically evaluable. The most common reasons patients were nonevaluable were failure to return for specified visits and noncompliance with the administration of the medication; 2 patients receiving penicillin V discontinued use of the drug because of adverse events. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive either 7-mg/kg cefdinir, twice daily, for 5 days or 10-mg/kg penicillin V potassium, 4 times daily, for 10 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The eradication of S pyogenes and the clinical cure of the signs and symptoms of pharyngitis, both determined 5 to 10 days after the completion of therapy. RESULTS: Streptococcus pyogenes was eradicated in 201 (90%) of the 224 patients receiving cefdinir and 155 (72%) of the 216 patients receiving penicillin V (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7%-25.1%; P < .001). The clinical cure rates were 92% and 91% in the groups receiving cefdinir and penicillin V, respectively (95% CI, -4.5% to 6.1%; P = .80). Adverse events, regardless of the opinion of the investigator about their relationship to the study medication, occurred in 12.5% of the patients receiving cefdinir and 13.6% of the patients receiving penicillin V (P = .69). CONCLUSIONS: A 5-day regimen of cefdinir eradicated a higher proportion of S pyogenes than a 10-day regimen of penicillin V. No difference was noted between the regimens for clinical outcomes or adverse event rates.

Efficacy and safety of cefdinir in the treatment of patients with acute bronchitis. The Cefdinir Bronchitis Study Group.

In this randomized, open-label, dose-comparative study, 18 investigators enrolled 466 patients with acute bronchitis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 600 mg of cefdinir once daily (QD) or 300 mg of cefdinir twice daily (BID) for 10 days. Both microbiologic and clinical efficacy were assessed at the test-of-cure visit, 7 to 14 days after therapy stopped. A total of 296 patients were classified as assessable at the test-of-cure visit (n = 150 QD, n = 146 BID). Eradication rates of baseline pathogens in these assessable patients were similar in both groups; the baseline pathogen eradication rate for assessable patients in the QD arm was 92%, and that in the BID arm was 93%. Clinical success (cure or improvement) in assessable patients was 91% and 93%, respectively. No difference was seen in the incidence of adverse events, in the incidence of diarrhea, or in the incidence of treatment withdrawals between the two groups. We conclude that cefdinir is effective and safe for the treatment of patients with acute bronchitis.