Skip to main content
Log in

Comparative microbiological activity and pharmacokinetics of cefprozil

  • Current Topic: Review
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In vitro studies on the activity of cefprozil have been conducted in Europe and North America. Against gram-negative bacilli, cefprozil and cefaclor are at least two to four times more active than cephalexin. Cefixime is more active against these organisms. Against gram-positive cocci, cefprozil is at least two to four times more active than cefaclor and cephalexin; cefixime has limited gram-positive activity, and is particularly inactive against staphylococci (MIC90 32 mg/l). Cefprozil is highly active againstStreptococcus pneumoniae (unlike cefixime). Those strains of this genus that display intermediate resistance to pneumococci are more susceptible to cefprozil than cefaclor.Neisseria species andMoraxella catarrhalis are susceptible to cefprozil (MIC90 0.06 and 1 mg/l). β-lactamase-producing strains ofHaemophilus influenzae appear to be susceptible to cefprozil, as the reported MIC90 is 2–4 mg/I. Enterococci,Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and those strains of theEnterobacteriaceae that commonly possess a chromosomal cephalosporinase (e.g.,Providencia, Morganella andEnterobacter) are generally considered to be resistant to cefprozil as well as to other oral cephalosporins. Cefprozil appears to display enhanced stability to the commonly encountered Tem-1 and SHV-1 plasmid-mediated β-lactamases, as found inHaemophilus influenzae, Neisseria gonorrhoeae and theEnterobacteriaceae. Cefprozil is rapidly absorbed, reaching a maximum concentration 0.9 to 1.2 h post-dose. Following oral doses of 250 and 500 mg, the Cmax is 6.2 and 10.0 mg/l respectively. Serum half-lives are generally reported as between 1.2 and 1.4 h, and urine recovery is high, 57–70 %. Ingestion of food has no significant effect on cefprozil pharmacokinetics, but does reduce the serum levels of cefaclor. Studies in severe renal dysfunction suggest that only when the creatinine clearance is under 30 ml/min (when the half-life exceeds 5 h) is there a need for a reduction in the dosage of cefprozil by 50 % or an increase of the dosage interval. Children (over 2 months of age) have very similar pharmacokinetics, the only difference being a slightly shorter cefprozil half-life (ca. 1.0 h). Studies in the elderly suggest that age, per se, does not need an alteration in dosing. The tissue penetration of cefprozil is similar to that of other β-lactams and the blister-fluid model demonstrates that 80 % penetration is found in an inflammatory exudate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chin N-X, Neu HC: Comparative antibacterial activity of a new oral cephalosporin, BMY 28100. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1987, 31: 480–483.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hiraoka M, Masuyoshi S, Tomatsu K: In vitro activity and β-lactamase stability of the oral cephalosporin BMY 28100. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1987, 6: 559–563.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jones RN, Barry AL: BMY 28100, a new oral cephalosporin: antimicrobial activity against nearly 7000 recent clinical isolates. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 1988, 9: 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Leitner E, Pursiano PA, Buck RE: BMY 28100, a new oral cephalosporin. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1987, 31: 238–243.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kayser F: Comparative antibacterial activity of a new oral cephalosporin BMY 28100. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1987, 6: 309–312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Steele J, Edwards B, Rissling J: In vitro activity of BMY 28100, a new oral cephalosporin. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1987, 6: 111–113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thornsberry C: Review of the in vitro antibacterial activity of cefprozil, a new oral cephalosporin. Clinical Infectious Diseases 1992, 14: Supplement 2: 189–194.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kitzis MD, Liassine N, Ferre B, Gutman L, Acar JF, Goldstein F: In vitro activities of 15 oral β-lactams againstKlebsiella pneumoniae harboring new extended spectrum β-lactamases. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1990, 34: 1783–1786.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tomatsu K, Ando S, Masuyoshi S, Kondo S, Kawaguchi H: In vitro and in vivo evaluation of BMY 28100, a new oral cephalosporin. Journal of Antibiotics 1987, 40: 1175–1183.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jolly A, Andrews JM, Brenwald N, Wise R: The in vitro activity of a new highly active quinolone, DU-6859a. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1993, 32: 757–763.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lode H, Muller C, Borner K, Nord C-E, Koeppe P: Multi-dose pharmacokinetics of cefprozil and its effects on intestinal flora of volunteers. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1992, 36: 144–149.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Barbhaiya RH, Shukla UA, Gleason CR, Shuya WC, Pittman KA: Comparison of the effects of food on the pharmacokinetics of cefprozil and cefaclor. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1990, 34: 1210–1213.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shyu WC, Wilber RB, Pittman KA, Barbhaiya RH: Effect of antacid on the bioavailability of cefprozil. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1992, 36: 962–965.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shyu WC, Pittman KA, Wilber RB, Matzke GR, Barbhaiya RH: Pharmacokinetics of cefprozil in healthy subjects and patients with renal impairment. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1991, 31: 362–371.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shyu WC, Wilber RB, Pittman KA, Garg DC, Barbhaiya RH: Pharmacokinectic of cefprozil in healthy subjects and patients with hepatic impairment. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1991, 31: 373–376.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Saez-Liorens X, Shyu WC, Shelton S, Kumiesz H, Nelson J: Pharmacokinetics of cefprozil in infants and children. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1990, 34: 372–376.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nye K, O'Neill P, Andrews JM, Wise R: Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of cefprozil. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1990, 25: 831–835.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wise, R. Comparative microbiological activity and pharmacokinetics of cefprozil. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 13, 839–845 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02111350

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02111350

Keywords

Navigation