-
European Archives of... Apr 2016More than 120,000 patients are treated annually in Germany to resolve repeated episodes of acute tonsillitis. Therapy is aiming at symptom regression, avoidance of...
More than 120,000 patients are treated annually in Germany to resolve repeated episodes of acute tonsillitis. Therapy is aiming at symptom regression, avoidance of complications, reduction in the number of disease-related absences in school or at work, increased cost-effectiveness and improved quality of life. The purpose of this part of the guideline is to provide clinicians in any setting with a clinically focused multi-disciplinary guidance through different conservative treatment options in order to reduce inappropriate variation in clinical care, improve clinical outcome and reduce harm. Surgical management in terms of intracapsular as well as extracapsular tonsillectomy (i.e. tonsillotomy) is the subject of part II of this guideline. To estimate the probability of tonsillitis caused by β-hemolytic streptococci, a diagnostic scoring system according to Centor or McIsaac is suggested. If therapy is considered, a positive score of ≥3 should lead to pharyngeal swab or rapid test or culture in order to identify β-hemolytic streptococci. Routinely performed blood tests for acute tonsillitis are not indicated. After acute streptococcal tonsillitis, there is no need to repeat a pharyngeal swab or any other routine blood tests, urine examinations or cardiological diagnostics such as ECG. The determination of the antistreptolysin O-titer (ASLO titer) and other antistreptococcal antibody titers do not have any value in relation to acute tonsillitis with or without pharyngitis and should not be performed. First-line therapy of β-hemolytic streptococci consists of oral penicillin. Instead of phenoxymethylpenicillin-potassium (penicillin V potassium), also phenoxymethlpenicillin-benzathine with a clearly longer half-life can be used. Oral intake for 7 days of one of both the drugs is recommended. Alternative treatment with oral cephalosporins (e.g. cefadroxil, cefalexin) is indicated only in cases of penicillin failure, frequent recurrences, and whenever a more reliable eradication of β-hemolytic streptococci is desirable. In cases of allergy or incompatibility of penicillin, cephalosporins or macrolides (e.g. Erythromycin-estolate) are valuable alternatives.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Disease Management; Germany; Humans; Patient Care Team; Penicillin V; Secondary Prevention; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus pyogenes; Tonsillitis
PubMed: 26755048
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-015-3872-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Bacterial folliculitis and boils are globally prevalent bacterial infections involving inflammation of the hair follicle and the perifollicular tissue. Some... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bacterial folliculitis and boils are globally prevalent bacterial infections involving inflammation of the hair follicle and the perifollicular tissue. Some folliculitis may resolve spontaneously, but others may progress to boils without treatment. Boils, also known as furuncles, involve adjacent tissue and may progress to cellulitis or lymphadenitis. A systematic review of the best evidence on the available treatments was needed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions (such as topical antibiotics, topical antiseptic agents, systemic antibiotics, phototherapy, and incision and drainage) for people with bacterial folliculitis and boils.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to June 2020: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched five trials registers up to June 2020. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed systemic antibiotics; topical antibiotics; topical antiseptics, such as topical benzoyl peroxide; phototherapy; and surgical interventions in participants with bacterial folliculitis or boils. Eligible comparators were active intervention, placebo, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 'clinical cure' and 'severe adverse events leading to withdrawal of treatment'; secondary outcomes were 'quality of life', 'recurrence of folliculitis or boil following completion of treatment', and 'minor adverse events not leading to withdrawal of treatment'. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs (1300 participants). The studies included more males (332) than females (221), although not all studies reported these data. Seventeen trials were conducted in hospitals, and one was conducted in clinics. The participants included both children and adults (0 to 99 years). The studies did not describe severity in detail; of the 232 participants with folliculitis, 36% were chronic. At least 61% of participants had furuncles or boils, of which at least 47% were incised. Duration of oral and topical treatments ranged from 3 days to 6 weeks, with duration of follow-up ranging from 3 days to 6 months. The study sites included Asia, Europe, and America. Only three trials reported funding, with two funded by industry. Ten studies were at high risk of 'performance bias', five at high risk of 'reporting bias', and three at high risk of 'detection bias'. We did not identify any RCTs comparing topical antibiotics against topical antiseptics, topical antibiotics against systemic antibiotics, or phototherapy against sham light. Eleven trials compared different oral antibiotics. We are uncertain as to whether cefadroxil compared to flucloxacillin (17/21 versus 18/20, risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.16; 41 participants; 1 study; 10 days of treatment) or azithromycin compared to cefaclor (8/15 versus 10/16, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.40; 31 participants; 2 studies; 7 days of treatment) differed in clinical cure (both very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in clinical cure rate between cefdinir and cefalexin after 17 to 24 days (25/32 versus 32/42, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.38; 74 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), and there probably is little to no difference in clinical cure rate between cefditoren pivoxil and cefaclor after 7 days (24/46 versus 21/47, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.78; 93 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). For risk of severe adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal, there may be little to no difference between cefdinir versus cefalexin after 17 to 24 days (1/191 versus 1/200, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.62; 391 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). There may be an increased risk with cefadroxil compared with flucloxacillin after 10 days (6/327 versus 2/324, RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 14.62; 651 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and cefditoren pivoxil compared with cefaclor after 7 days (2/77 versus 0/73, RR 4.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 97.17; 150 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, for these three comparisons the 95% CI is very wide and includes the possibility of both increased and reduced risk of events. We are uncertain whether azithromycin affects the risk of severe adverse events leading to withdrawal of treatment compared to cefaclor (274 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) as no events occurred in either group after seven days. For risk of minor adverse events, there is probably little to no difference between the following comparisons: cefadroxil versus flucloxacillin after 10 days (91/327 versus 116/324, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.98; 651 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) or cefditoren pivoxil versus cefaclor after 7 days (8/77 versus 5/73, RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.52 to 4.42; 150 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of azithromycin versus cefaclor after seven days due to very low-certainty evidence (7/148 versus 4/126, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.17; 274 participants; 2 studies). The study comparing cefdinir versus cefalexin did not report data for total minor adverse events, but both groups experienced diarrhoea, nausea, and vaginal mycosis during 17 to 24 days of treatment. Additional adverse events reported in the other included studies were vomiting, rashes, and gastrointestinal symptoms such as stomach ache, with some events leading to study withdrawal. Three included studies assessed recurrence following completion of treatment, none of which evaluated our key comparisons, and no studies assessed quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no RCTs regarding the efficacy and safety of topical antibiotics versus antiseptics, topical versus systemic antibiotics, or phototherapy versus sham light for treating bacterial folliculitis or boils. Comparative trials have not identified important differences in efficacy or safety outcomes between different oral antibiotics for treating bacterial folliculitis or boils. Most of the included studies assessed participants with skin and soft tissue infection which included many disease types, whilst others focused specifically on folliculitis or boils. Antibiotic sensitivity data for causative organisms were often not reported. Future trials should incorporate culture and sensitivity information and consider comparing topical antibiotic with antiseptic, and topical versus systemic antibiotics or phototherapy.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bias; Carbuncle; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Furunculosis; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33634465
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013099.pub2 -
Microbiology Spectrum Aug 2022Cephalexin and cefadroxil are oral first-generation cephalosporins used to treat methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections. Despite its shorter...
Cefadroxil Comparable to Cephalexin: Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations among Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Isolates from Pediatric Musculoskeletal Infections.
Cephalexin and cefadroxil are oral first-generation cephalosporins used to treat methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections. Despite its shorter half-life, cephalexin is more frequently prescribed, although cefadroxil is an appealing alternative, given its slower clearance and possibility for less frequent dosing. We report comparative MIC distributions for cefadroxil and cephalexin, as well as for oxacillin, cephalothin, ceftaroline, and cefazolin, for 48 unique clinical MSSA isolates from pediatric patients with musculoskeletal infections. Both cefadroxil and cephalexin had MIC values of 2 μg/mL and MIC values of 4 μg/mL. MICs for oxacillin, cephalothin, and ceftaroline were ≤0.25 μg/mL, and cefazolin's MIC was 0.5 μg/mL. While cefadroxil and cephalexin MICs are higher than those for other active agents, the distributions of MICs for cefadroxil and cephalexin are statistically equivalent, suggesting similar MSSA activities. Cefadroxil should be further considered an alternative agent to cephalexin, although additional work is needed to identify the optimal dose and frequency of these antibiotics for the treatment of serious MSSA infections. Cephalexin and cefadroxil are oral antibiotics that are used to treat serious infections due to the bacteria MSSA. While cephalexin is used more commonly, cefadroxil is excreted from the body more slowly; this generally allows patients to take cefadroxil less frequently than cephalexin. In this study, we compared the abilities of cefadroxil, cephalexin, and several other representative intravenous antibiotics to inhibit the growth of MSSA in the laboratory. Bacterial samples were obtained from children with bone, joint, and/or muscle infections caused by MSSA. We found that cefadroxil and cephalexin inhibited the growth of MSSA at similar concentrations, suggesting similar antibacterial potencies. The selected intravenous antistaphylococcal antibiotics generally inhibited bacterial growth with lower antibiotic concentrations. Based on these results, cefadroxil should be further considered an alternative oral antibiotic to cephalexin, although future research is needed to identify the optimal dose and frequency of these antibiotics for serious infections.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Cefadroxil; Cefazolin; Cephalexin; Cephalothin; Child; Humans; Methicillin; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Oxacillin; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 35730963
DOI: 10.1128/spectrum.01039-22 -
Penicillin and cephalosporin cross-reactivity: role of side chain and synthetic cefadroxil epitopes.Clinical and Translational Allergy Dec 2020Analysis of cross-reactivity is necessary for prescribing safe cephalosporins for penicillin allergic patients. Amoxicillin (AX) is the betalactam most often involved in...
BACKGROUND
Analysis of cross-reactivity is necessary for prescribing safe cephalosporins for penicillin allergic patients. Amoxicillin (AX) is the betalactam most often involved in immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs), and cefadroxil (CX) the most likely cephalosporin to cross-react with AX, since they share the same R1 side chain, unlike cefuroxime (CO), with a structurally different R1. We aimed to analyse cross-reactivity with CX and CO in patients with confirmed IHRs to AX, including sIgE recognition to AX, CX, CO, and novel synthetic determinants of CX.
METHODS
Fifty-four patients with confirmed IHRs to AX based on skin test (ST) and/or drug provocation test (DPT) were included. Serum sIgE to AX and benzylpenicillin was determined by Radioallergosorbent test (RAST). Two potential determinants of CX, involving intact or modified R1 structure, with open betalactam ring, were synthesised and sIgE evaluated by RAST inhibition assay.
RESULTS
Tolerance to CX (Group A) was observed in 64.8% cases and cross-reactivity in 35.2% cases (Group B). Cross-reactivity with CO was only found in 1.8% cases from Group B. ST to CX showed a negative predictive value of 94.6%. RAST inhibition assays showed higher recognition to CX as well as to both synthetic determinants (66% of positive cases) in Group B.
CONCLUSIONS
Cross-reactivity with CX in AX allergic patients is 35%, being ST not enough for prediction. R1, although critical for recognition, is not the unique factor. The synthetic determinants of CX, 1-(HOPhG-Ser-Bu) and 2-(pyrazinone) are promising tools for determining in vitro cross-reactivity to CX in AX allergic patients.
PubMed: 33292516
DOI: 10.1186/s13601-020-00368-1 -
Drug Metabolism and Disposition: the... Feb 2017The proton-coupled oligopeptide transporter PEPT2 (SLC15A2) plays an important role in the disposition of di/tripeptides and peptide-like drugs in kidney and brain....
The proton-coupled oligopeptide transporter PEPT2 (SLC15A2) plays an important role in the disposition of di/tripeptides and peptide-like drugs in kidney and brain. However, unlike PEPT1 (SLC15A1), there is little information about species differences in the transport of PEPT2-mediated substrates. The purpose of this study was to determine whether PEPT2 exhibited a species-dependent uptake of glycylsarcosine (GlySar) and cefadroxil using yeast Pichia pastoris cells expressing cDNA from human, mouse, and rat. In such a system, the functional activity of PEPT2 was evaluated with [H]GlySar as a function of time, pH, substrate concentration, and specificity, and with [H]cefadroxil as a function of concentration. We observed that the uptake of GlySar was pH-dependent with an optimal uptake at pH 6.5 for all three species. Moreover, GlySar showed saturable uptake kinetics, with K values in human (150.6 µM) > mouse (42.8 µM) ≈ rat (36.0 µM). The PEPT2-mediated uptake of GlySar in yeast transformants was specific, being inhibited by di/tripeptides and peptide-like drugs, but not by amino acids and nonsubstrate compounds. Cefadroxil also showed a saturable uptake profile in all three species, with K values in human (150.8 μM) > mouse (15.6 μM) ≈ rat (11.9 μM). These findings demonstrated that the PEPT2-mediated uptake of GlySar and cefadroxil was specific, species dependent, and saturable. Furthermore, based on the K values, mice appeared similar to rats but both were less than optimal as animal models in evaluating the renal reabsorption and pharmacokinetics of peptides and peptide-like drugs in humans.
Topics: Animals; Biological Transport; Cefadroxil; Cell Culture Techniques; DNA, Complementary; Dipeptides; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Kinetics; Mice; Pichia; Rats; Species Specificity; Substrate Specificity; Symporters
PubMed: 27836942
DOI: 10.1124/dmd.116.073320 -
Indian Pediatrics Dec 2007
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefadroxil; Child, Preschool; Cough; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Drug Eruptions; Drug Interactions; Exanthema; Humans; Male; Patch Tests; Risk Factors; Syndrome
PubMed: 18175852
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021The aim of this study was to develop physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models capable of simulating cefadroxil concentrations in plasma and tissues in mouse,...
The aim of this study was to develop physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models capable of simulating cefadroxil concentrations in plasma and tissues in mouse, rat, and human. PBPK models in this study consisted of 14 tissues and 2 blood compartments. They were established using measured tissue to plasma partition coefficient ( ) in mouse and rat, absolute expression levels of hPEPT1 along the entire length of the human intestine, and the transporter kinetic parameters. The PBPK models also assumed that all the tissues were well-stirred compartments with perfusion rate limitations, and the ratio of the concentration in tissue to the unbound concentration in plasma is identical across species. These PBPK models were validated strictly by a series of observed plasma concentration-time profile data. The average fold error (AFE) and absolute average fold error (AAFE) values were all less than 2. The models' rationality and accuracy were further demonstrated by the almost consistent calculated by the PBPK model and noncompartmental method, as well as the good allometric scaling relationship of and . The model suggests that hPEPT1 is the major transporter responsible for the oral absorption of cefadroxil in human, and the plasma concentration-time profiles of cefadroxil were not sensitive to dissolution rate faster than T = 2 h. The cefadroxil PBPK model in human is reliable and can be used to predict concentration-time profile at infected tissue. It may be useful for dose selection and informative decision-making during clinical trials and dosage form design of cefadroxil and provide a reference for the PBPK model establishment of hPEPT1 substrate.
PubMed: 35002687
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.692741 -
Pharmaceutical Research Nov 2013To determine the effect of PepT1 on the absorption and disposition of cefadroxil, including the potential for saturable intestinal uptake, after escalating oral doses of...
PURPOSE
To determine the effect of PepT1 on the absorption and disposition of cefadroxil, including the potential for saturable intestinal uptake, after escalating oral doses of drug.
METHODS
The absorption and disposition kinetics of [3H]cefadroxil were determined in wild-type and PepT1 knockout mice after 44.5, 89.1, 178, and 356 nmol/g oral doses of drug. The pharmacokinetics of [3H]cefadroxil were also determined in both genotypes after 44.5 nmol/g intravenous bolus doses.
RESULTS
PepT1 deletion reduced the area under the plasma concentration-time profile (AUC0-120) of cefadroxil by 10-fold, the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) by 17.5-fold, and increased the time to reach a maximum plasma concentration (Tmax) by 3-fold. There was no evidence of nonlinear intestinal absorption since AUC0-120 and Cmax values changed in a dose-proportional manner. Moreover, the pharmacokinetics of cefadroxil were not different between genotypes after intravenous bolus doses, indicating that PepT1 did not affect drug disposition. Finally, no differences were observed in the peripheral tissue distribution of cefadroxil (i.e., outside gastrointestinal tract) once these tissues were corrected for differences in perfusing blood concentrations.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings demonstrate convincingly the critical role of intestinal PepT1 in both the rate and extent of oral administration for cefadroxil and potentially other aminocephalosporin drugs.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefadroxil; Gene Deletion; Intestinal Absorption; Intestinal Mucosa; Mice; Mice, Knockout; Peptide Transporter 1; Symporters
PubMed: 23959853
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-013-1168-3