Update on new oral cephalosporins

Steven L. Barriere
{"title":"Update on new oral cephalosporins","authors":"Steven L. Barriere","doi":"10.1016/0738-1751(92)90003-S","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Only cefprozil and cefpodoxime have been shown to be more effective than comparison agents, and they appear to better tolerated than amoxicillin-containing regimens. The potent Gram-negative activity of cefpodoxime is attractive for selective clinical situations (e.g., in place of a quinolone). However, it has not been tested for the treatment of serious Gram-negative infections. Either of these agents would appear to be preferable to cefaclor in terms of efficacy, safety, and cost. Usage patterns similar to that currently applicable to cefaclor should also be applied to the use of either of these drugs, as they should be reserved for patients who have not responded to first-line therapy or in penicillin-allergic patients who cannot tolerate erythromycin or trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100101,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobic Newsletter","volume":"8 3","pages":"Pages 21-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0738-1751(92)90003-S","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobic Newsletter","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/073817519290003S","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Only cefprozil and cefpodoxime have been shown to be more effective than comparison agents, and they appear to better tolerated than amoxicillin-containing regimens. The potent Gram-negative activity of cefpodoxime is attractive for selective clinical situations (e.g., in place of a quinolone). However, it has not been tested for the treatment of serious Gram-negative infections. Either of these agents would appear to be preferable to cefaclor in terms of efficacy, safety, and cost. Usage patterns similar to that currently applicable to cefaclor should also be applied to the use of either of these drugs, as they should be reserved for patients who have not responded to first-line therapy or in penicillin-allergic patients who cannot tolerate erythromycin or trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole.

新的口服头孢菌素的最新情况
只有头孢丙烯和头孢多肟已被证明比比较剂更有效,而且它们似乎比含阿莫西林的方案耐受性更好。头孢多肟的强效革兰氏阴性活性对选择性临床情况(例如,代替喹诺酮类药物)具有吸引力。然而,它还没有被测试用于治疗严重的革兰氏阴性感染。这些药物中的任何一种在疗效、安全性和成本方面似乎都优于头孢克洛。这两种药物的使用模式也应与目前适用于头孢克洛的使用模式类似,因为它们应保留给对一线治疗无反应的患者或不能耐受红霉素或甲氧苄氨嘧啶甲恶唑的青霉素过敏患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信