Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1993 Feb;16(2):123-9.
doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(93)90006-s.

Comparison of oral cefpodoxime proxetil and cefaclor in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Comparison of oral cefpodoxime proxetil and cefaclor in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections

D L Stevens et al. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1993 Feb.

Abstract

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study was designed to compare the safety and efficacy of cefpodoxime proxetil and cefaclor in the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. Patients were aged > or = 12 years with acute (< or = 7 days duration), single-site skin or skin-structure infections. The 7- to 10-day treatment regimens were cefpodoxime proxetil (400 mg cefpodoxime) orally with food twice a day with cefaclor-matched placebo (orally, fasting, three times a day); or cefaclor (Ceclor; 500 mg anhydrous equivalent) orally, fasting, three times a day, with cefpodoxime-matched placebo (orally with food twice a day). Clinical progress and cultures were evaluated upon admission to the study; on study days 7-10 and 15-18; and 2-3 weeks after treatment. Cefpodoxime had lower minimum inhibitory concentrations against the majority of Staphylococcus species than did cefaclor. Both treatments were highly effective (99% pathogen eradication and 86% cure rate). These high eradication rates were not unexpected in this study of minor infections in which patients with resistant pathogens were excluded. Cefaclor had a higher failure rate [2 (4%) of 57], than did cefpodoxime [2 (1%) of 139; p not significant]. Most patients in both groups completed treatment as planned: 185 (74%) of 249 cefpodoxime-treated patients and 91 (75%) of 122 cefaclor-treated patients. Both treatments were well tolerated and considered safe and effective in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. However, the twice-a-day dosing regimen for cefpodoxime proxetil compared with the three-times-a-day regimen for cefaclor may result in better patient compliance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources