Five-year survey of cefotaxime resistance in Spain

[Cefotaxime, twenty years later. Observational study in critically ill patients]

OBJECTIVE

Afer twenty years of commercial availability of cefotaxime, the objective of this study was to know the reasons and modes of use, administration dosage as well as its effectiveness and tolerance in critically ill patients admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICU) in our country.

DESIGN

Open, prospective, observational, multicenter study.

SUBJECTS

All patients who had cefotaxime administered in monotherapy or in combination with other antibiotics were included as cases in this study.

RESULTS

A total of 624 patients were included in 44 ICUs (average 14 cases). Cefotaxime was indicated for therapy of 274 community-acquired infections (43.9%), 194 prophylaxis (31.1%), and 156 nosocomial infections (25.0%). Both community-acquired pneumonia (149, 34.7%) and mechanical ventilation associated pneumonia (62, 14.4%) predominated, followed by trachebronchitis (60, 13.9%) and central nervous system infections (42, 9.8%). Over half of infections (222, 51.6%) presented as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), 133 (30.9%) as severe sepsis, and 75 (17.4%) as septic shock. In 374 (87.0%) out of the 430 cases of infection treatment, cefotaxime wan prescribed on an empirical basis and in 150 of them (40.1%) a further confirmation of the causative agent was obtained. In 120 (27.9%) cases, cefotaxime was administered as monotherapy and in the remaining cases in association with one or more antibiotics.The use of cefotaxime as prophylaxis was evaluated as failure in 31 (16.0%) of the cases, whereas in treatment it was considered as failure in 98 (22.8%) of the 430 cases, 51 community-acquired infections, 27 (27.3%) of ICU-acquired infections, and 20 (35.1%) nosocomial infections acquired outside the ICU. In 127 (29.5%) of the 430 infection treatments the initial treatment was changed. The reasons for the change included clinical failure (36, 28.3%), recovery of an uncovered pathogen with the antibiotic (40, 31.5%), emergence of multi-resistant pathogens (28, 22.0%), to decrease the therapeutic spectrum (7, 5.5%), and other reasons (16). Cefotoxime was also changed in 21 (6.0%) of the 194 cases in which it was used as prophylaxis. In 32 (5.1%) patients 37 adverse effects were noted which were associated with a possible or likely use of cefotaxime. Most notably, diarrhoea in 15 (2.4%) occasions and skin rash in 6 cases (1.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cefotaxime is still one of the therapies of choice for community-acquired and nosocomial infections as well as in different prophylactic modes. It is mostly used on an empirical basis and associated with other antibiotics. Clinical and microbiological efficiency is high whereas adverse effects related to its use have been scarce.

Clinical and pharmacological evaluation of a modified cefotaxime bid regimen versus traditional tid in pediatric lower respiratory tract infections

It is generally accepted that the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia, either in adults or in pediatric patients, is mainly empirical. Thus, the treatment selection must fulfill both the epidemiological requirements, according to the most frequently described pathogens, and the pharmacological criteria to ensure adequate and prolonged drug concentrations at the infection site, to reach clinical efficacy. Cefotaxime has proven to be effective in this indication when traditionally administered three times daily and, more recently, twice daily, as a result of a re-evaluation of its pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic features. To gain further evidence using this updated dosing schedule, 258 pediatric patients with lower respiratory tract infections were treated with cefotaxime 100 mg/kg/day, administered as a twice daily or three times daily regimen. In the cefotaxime 50 mg/kg twice-daily group (n = 130), a complete resolution of clinical signs and symptoms were observed in 88.5% of patients. Similarly, in the cefotaxime 33.3 mg/kg group (n = 128), 93.6% of patients had a complete resolution of clinical signs and symptoms. Both drug schedules were well tolerated. Pharmacokinetic parameters determined for the two cefotaxime dosing schedules showed comparability. The serum half-life of desacetylcefotaxime was marginally longer than for cefotaxime in both dosage groups (1.64 and 1.36 h for desacetylcefotaxime versus 1.2 and 0.85 h for cefotaxime after 50 mg/kg or 33.3 mg/kg doses, respectively). Results from this study support the use of twice-daily cefotaxime administration for the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections in pediatric patients.

Cefotaxime. A reappraisal of its antibacterial activity and pharmacokinetic properties, and a review of its therapeutic efficacy when administered twice daily for the treatment of mild to moderate infections

Cefotaxime is well established as an effective and well tolerated antibacterial drug for 3 times daily parenteral treatment of a variety of moderate to severe infections in hospitalised patients. Its frequency of administration has recently been reassessed with a 12-hourly regimen. Comparative studies in hospitalised patients with nosocomial or community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections, demonstrate the similar clinical and bacteriological efficacy of twice daily cefotaxime 1 or 2 g and the same daily dose of ceftriaxone, usually administered once daily. Cefotaxime 2 g twice daily was also similar in efficacy to ceftriaxone 2 g once daily. Retrospective and post-marketing studies also reveal the similar efficacy of cefotaxime administered twice and 3 times daily, and pharmacoeconomic studies suggest that total direct costs of treatment with cefotaxime compared is similar to that with other third generation cephalosporins in currently used dosage regimens. When administered twice daily, cefotaxime is, thus, an effective antibacterial agent for the treatment of hospitalised patients outside the intensive care unit with a variety of mild to moderate non-CNS infections caused by susceptible organisms. When appropriately administered twice daily there is potential to lower the cost of antibacterial treatment without compromising efficacy.