Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, May 1998, p. 1073-1075, Vol. 42, No. 5
Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Research, Ann
Arbor, Michigan,1 and
Foothill Family
Clinic,2 and
University of Utah School
of Medicine and Medical Research Associates of Utah,
Inc.,3 Salt Lake City, Utah
Received 17 December 1997/Returned for modification 26 January
1998/Accepted 28 February 1998
A multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigator-blind study was
performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral cefdinir versus
oral penicillin V for the treatment of pharyngitis due to group A
beta-hemolytic streptococci (GABHS). Patients 13 years of age and older
were randomized to receive either oral cefdinir (300 mg twice a day)
for 5 days followed by placebo for 5 days or oral penicillin V (250 mg
four times a day) for 10 days. Throat cultures were obtained, and signs
and symptoms of pharyngitis were recorded at study admission and
follow-up visits on study days 11 to 15, 16 to 20, and 25 to 31. Patients kept a diary to record medication intake and their assessment
of throat pain at admission and at each day of study treatment. Five
hundred fifty-eight patients were enrolled, of whom 432 (77.4%) were
clinically and microbiologically evaluable. The GABHS eradication rates
5 to 10 days after completion of therapy were 193 of 218 (88.5%) in the cefdinir group and 176 of 214 (82.2%) in the penicillin group (P = 0.053). Clinical cure rates were 89.0 and 84.6%,
respectively (P = 0.80). By the time of the long-term
follow-up visit, 2 to 3 weeks after completion of treatment, 156 of 191 (81.7%) of the assessable cefdinir patients and 152 of 195 (77.9%) of
the penicillin patients remained free of GABHS. Both treatments were
well tolerated, with adverse reaction rates of 18.3% in the cefdinir
study arm and 15.0% in the penicillin study arm (P = 0.278). Five-day treatment with cefdinir is safe and effective therapy
for GABHS pharyngitis. Based on its twice-a-day dosage and shorter
course of therapy, leading to potentially greater patient compliance,
cefdinir may be considered for use in the treatment of pharyngitis
caused by GABHS.
Pharyngitis due to
Streptococcus pyogenes (group A beta-hemolytic streptococci
[GABHS]) is one of the most common bacterial infections seen in
general medical practice, accounting for a significant number of
physician office visits per year. Although patients recover clinically
without antibiotic therapy, treatment is recommended to hasten clinical
resolution, to prevent rheumatic fever (1), and to reduce
the incidence of locally invasive infection.
Cefdinir is an extended-spectrum oral cephalosporin with potent
antistreptococcal activity, with a MIC at which 90% of the isolates
are inhibited (MIC90) of 0.015 µg/ml for S. pyogenes (7).
Since its introduction in the 1940s, penicillin has been the "gold
standard" treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis (1), and
for many years it effected consistent microbiologic eradication rates
of over 90% (2). However, in more recent years, the
incidence of bacteriologic failure with oral penicillin therapy has
increased to as much as 10 to 30% (3, 13). Alternatively,
(Some of these data have been presented at the 35th Interscience
Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Francisco,
Calif., 17 to 20 September 1995 [3a].)
To enter the study, patients needed to be at least 13 years of
age and were required to have throat pain and erythema. These and the
signs and symptoms fever, cervical lymphadenitis, and pharyngeal
tonsillar exudate and edema were monitored. Patients had to have a
positive rapid streptococcal screening test (Abbott Testpack Plus Strep
A; Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Ill.). Patients allergic to
Patients were randomized to receive either 300-mg cefdinir capsules
twice a day (b.i.d.) for 5 days or 250-mg penicillin V tablets four
times a day (q.i.d.) for 10 days. The study was investigator blinded;
medication was dispensed by a third party, who instructed the patient
not to mention to the investigator any details about the appearance of
the medication or the dosing schedule. To better maintain the blind,
those patients who received cefdinir were dosed with an additional 5 days of placebo after completing the cefdinir treatment. Patients were
scheduled to return for three additional visits, at which times
assessment of clinical signs and symptoms was performed, as was repeat
culturing for S. pyogenes. These visits took place on study
days 11 to 15 (5 to 10 days after completion of cefdinir), 16 to 20 (5 to 10 days after completion of penicillin), and 25 to 31 for long-term
follow-up. In addition to these visits, patients were contacted by
telephone on day 3 of treatment to encourage compliance and inquire
about adverse events. Identification of S. pyogenes,
susceptibility testing, and routine laboratory testing for safety
(complete blood count with differential, blood urea nitrogen,
creatinine, liver enzymes, and urinalysis) were performed by a central
laboratory (SciCor Labs, Inc., Indianapolis, Ind.). Susceptibility
(MIC) testing was performed according to National Committee for
Clinical Laboratory Standards guidelines (6). The following
breakpoints for cefdinir were used: susceptible, The posttherapy visit taking place 5 to 10 days after completion of
therapy was the time point at which the cure was defined (test of cure
[TOC]). To allow for regrowth of suppressed streptococci, microbiologic outcome was defined as persistence or eradication, depending on the throat culture for S. pyogenes at the
posttherapy visit. In those cases in which an isolate was found at a
postadmission visit, typing (T agglutination typing, M protein typing,
and opacity factor typing, as appropriate) of the acute- and
convalescent-phase strains was performed (5) (World Health
Organization Collaborating Center for Reference and Research on
Streptococci, Minneapolis, Minn.). If the acute- and convalescent-phase
isolates had identical serotypes, they were considered the same strain,
and an outcome of persistent infection was assigned; if not, the
admission pathogen was considered eradicated. A clinical outcome of
"cure" or "failure" was assigned at each visit; an outcome of
"improved" was not used. Cure was defined as the absence or
satisfactory remission of all signs and symptoms. Failure was defined
as a less than satisfactory response or the need for alternative
antimicrobial therapy.
To be evaluable, a patient must have had a culture positive for
S. pyogenes at study admission, and the patient must have taken at least 80% of the assigned study medication. Compliance was
assessed by questioning the patient, parent, or guardian, by use of a
dosing diary, and by quantifying unused medication. The diary also
solicited daily information on throat pain, to be characterized by the
patient as absent, mild, moderate, or severe. Patients were not
permitted to take other systemic antimicrobials and were required to
return within the specified TOC window for follow-up, except in those
cases in which a patient was clinically failing and returned earlier.
Equivalence of outcomes was assessed by a two-tailed 95% confidence
interval (CI) approach (11). Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)
testing was also performed to test for differences in outcomes. All
patients receiving the study drug were evaluable for safety, which was
monitored by reports of adverse reactions, changes in physical
examination, and development of laboratory abnormalities. An adverse
reaction was defined as any untoward occurrence during therapy or
within 2 days of discontinuing treatment, which was considered by the
investigator to be definitely, probably, or possibly due to study
medication.
Written informed consent was obtained from each patient or, when
appropriate, from the patient's parent or guardian. This study was
approved by an Investigational Review Board for each participating
study site.
Efficacy.
Patients were recruited from 21 sites. Five hundred
fifty-eight patients were enrolled. The patient demographics were
similar in the two study arms: 59.7% of the patients were women,
87.5% were white, and the median age was 26 years (range, 13 to 76 years). Patient disposition is summarized in Table
1. The most common reason why a patient
was not evaluable was a negative culture at study admission (74 patients). Other reasons were that the patient returned outside the
specified window for evaluation (except for treatment failure) or did
not return (46 patients), noncompliance (5 patients), and receipt of a
concurrent antimicrobial (1 patient). The reasons for nonevaluability
were similar in the two treatment groups. Most of the attrition between
the numbers of patients in the posttherapy visit and the long-term
follow-up represents patients who were failures posttherapy, who did
not require additional follow-up to determine outcome.
0066-4804/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Five-Day Cefdinir Treatment for Streptococcal
Pharyngitis
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References
-lactamase-stable oral cephalosporins and penicillins have been
shown to be highly effective in the treatment of streptococcal
pharyngitis (3, 13). In addition, trials of expanded- and
broad-spectrum oral cephalosporins in Europe (10) and more
recently in North America (8) suggest that a 5- to 7-day
duration of therapy is as effective as or even more effective than the
classical 10-day regimen of penicillin. Thus, we undertook to compare a
5-day course of oral cefdinir with a 10-day course of oral penicillin V
for the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis.
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References
-lactams, with evidence of locally invasive disease, with
significant concomitant disease (renal or hepatic dysfunction), or with
a history of rheumatic fever were excluded. Culture for S. pyogenes was obtained at the admission visit by swabbing the
oropharynx.
1 µg/ml;
intermediate, 2 µg/ml; resistant,
4 µg/ml.
![]()
RESULTS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials & Methods
Results
Discussion
References
TABLE 1.
Patient outcome with cefdinir versus penicillin therapy
0.015 to 0.03 µg/ml, respectively.
Microbiologic eradication rates and clinical cure rates for evaluable
patients at the posttherapy visit 5 to 10 days after completion of
therapy are shown in Table 1. The 95% CI for the difference in
eradication rates of cefdinir
penicillin was
0.4%, 12.9%,
indicating equivalence between the two treatments; CMH testing did not
show a difference between the two groups (P = 0.053).
The 95% CI for the difference in clinical cure rates of cefdinir
penicillin was
2.0%, 10.8%. CMH testing did not show a
significant difference (P = 0.80). An analysis of data
from patient diaries showed that the median and mean time to
symptomatic resolution of throat pain in both treatment groups was 3 days. In the cefdinir group, eradication rates were slightly higher in
patients 18 years of age or older (142 of 158 [89.9%]) than in those
17 years of age or younger (51 of 60 [85.0%]). In the penicillin
group, the eradication rates were similar in the older (130 of 158 [82.3%]) and younger (46 of 56 [82.1%]) age groups.
Reinfection and recolonization were uncommon among patients who
achieved eradication at the posttherapy visit. At the long-term follow-up visit, 15 to 21 days after completion of therapy, 166 cefdinir patients and 157 penicillin patients whose S. pyogenes cultures had been negative at TOC were available for
reculture. Of these, 156 (93.9%) cefdinir patients and 152 (96.8%)
penicillin patients still had cultures negative for S. pyogenes.
Safety. All 558 patients enrolled were evaluated for safety. Both cefdinir and penicillin V were well tolerated in this study. Adverse reactions occurred in 51 of 278 (18.3%) patients in the cefdinir group and 42 of 280 (15.0%) patients in the penicillin group (P = 0.28). The most common adverse reaction in both drug groups was diarrhea (cefdinir, 31 of 278 [11.2%] patients; penicillin V, 18 of 280 [6.4%] patients; P = 0.04). Other relatively common adverse reactions were nausea (cefdinir, 2.2%; penicillin, 3.9%), headache (cefdinir, 1.8%), abdominal pain (cefdinir, 1.4%; penicillin, 0.7%), dyspepsia (cefdinir, 1.4%; penicillin, 1.1%), and vaginal moniliasis (cefdinir, 0.7%; penicillin, 1.1%). Most adverse reactions were mild to moderate in intensity. The incidences of adverse reactions were similar in patients 13 to 17 years of age and those 18 years and older, except that diarrhea in the older group was experienced at approximately twice the rate in the younger group. There was no association between sex and incidence of adverse reactions (data not shown for demographic breakdowns).
Six patients (2.2%) discontinued cefdinir because of adverse reactions: three patients for diarrhea and one patient each for rash, nausea, and a combination of light-headedness, headache, and emesis. Four patients (1.4%) discontinued penicillin for adverse events: three for rash and one for numbness of the arm. Monitoring of screening laboratory data revealed a trend towards lower peripheral leukocyte counts and neutrophilia in both treatment groups, consistent with resolution of infection. Transient elevation of liver enzymes was seen posttherapy in both groups and was of no clinical significance.| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This study was designed to determine if a 5-day course of a new oral cephalosporin, cefdinir, was equivalent to the standard 10-day regimen of oral penicillin V in the treatment of patients with GABHS pharyngitis. Statistical testing for equivalence showed that the two treatment regimens were equivalent (P = 0.053) in terms of microbiologic eradication. Clinical cure rates were also equivalent in the two groups. The overall rates of adverse reactions were similar in cefdinir- and penicillin-treated patients.
An alternate and perhaps more stringent measure of outcome may be to require eradication of S. pyogenes at both the 5- to 10-day posttherapy and long-term follow-up visits. Overall, 25 of 25 (posttherapy visit) and 10 of 166 (long-term visit), or 35 of 191 (18.3%), cefdinir-treated patients and 38 of 38 and 5 of 157, or 43 of 195 (22.1%), penicillin-treated patients had streptococcal reisolation at some point. The difference in these eradication rates is not statistically significant.
In this study, there was a higher observed rate of eradication of GABHS
in the cefdinir-treated group than in the penicillin-treated group,
although the difference did not reach statistical significance at the
P < 0.05 level. The observed difference in
microbiologic responses cannot be attributed to a decreased
susceptibility of S. pyogenes to penicillin, because all
isolates were susceptible to penicillin by in vitro testing. Similarly,
it cannot be explained by a difference in compliance, since
noncompliant patients were excluded from the analysis. The phenomenon
of higher S. pyogenes eradication rates for cephalosporins
has been previously noted. Pichichero and Margolis have reviewed a
number of studies comparing cephalosporin with penicillin for the
treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis (9). Based on their
meta-analysis, they concluded that the cephalosporins are generally
more efficacious, presumably due to their resistance to degradation by
-lactamases. This may be especially true for patients with recurrent
streptococcal pharyngitis who have been treated with penicillin within
the previous 3 months (4). This opinion is not shared
universally, however. Shulman and colleagues have also reviewed the
studies included in the Pichichero meta-analysis, and concluded that
the available literature does not show that cephalosporins are superior
to penicillin for treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis
(12).
The Food and Drug Administration in the United States has approved the
use of a 5-day course of cefdinir for the treatment of streptococcal
pharyngitis and had previously approved cefpodoxime proxetil for 5-day
therapy as well. Other
-lactams have been approved for 10-day
treatment. Whatever the duration of treatment, eradication of S. pyogenes should theoretically reduce the risk of nonsuppurative
complications, such as rheumatic fever. The infrequency of these
complications today, however, has made it impossible to determine in
clinical trials whether treatments other than intramuscular injection
of penicillin actually prevent sequellae of streptococcal infection.
In summary, this study showed that 5-day treatment with oral cefdinir is safe and effective therapy for GABHS, with microbiological and clinical cures equal to 10-day treatment with oral penicillin V. The b.i.d. dosage and shorter course of therapy, leading to potentially greater patient compliance, must be balanced with other considerations, such as cost, when considering cefdinir for the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
The assistance of Edward L. Kaplan for reviewing the manuscript, Dwight Johnson for performing the streptococcal typing, and Agnes Hryczyk for word processing is gratefully acknowledged.
This study was supported by a grant from the Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Research Division of the Warner-Lambert Company.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Research, Division of Warner-Lambert Company, 2800 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Phone: (734) 998-5814. Fax: (734) 996-7266. E-mail: tackk{at}aa.wl.com.
The members of the Cefdinir Pediatric Pharyngitis Study Group are
as follows: Jeffrey M. Adelglass, Carrolton, Tex.; Ross Black,
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio; Bert Cochran, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Harry
Collins, Edison, N.J.; Jill Downing, Framingham, Mass.; Margaret Drehobl, San Diego, Calif.; Victor Elinoff, Endwell, N.J.; W. Manford Gooch, Salt Lake City, Utah; Randall Gore,
Portland, Oreg.; James Hedrick, Bardstown, Ky.; Daniel C. Henry, Salt Lake City, Utah; Lance Kirkegaard, Tacoma, Wash.;
Thomas W. Littlejohn, Winston-Salem, N.C.; Frank Mazzone, San Luis
Obispo, Calif.; James McCarty, Fresno, Calif.; Dennis
McCluskey, Mogadore, Ohio; John Ondrejicka, Jacksonville Beach,
Fla.; R. Zorba Pastor, Oregon, Wis.; Anthony D. Puopolo,
Milford, Mass.; Sam Roberts, Alabaster, Ala.; Jerry D. Smucker,
Columbus, Ohio; Malcolm J. Sperling, Fountain Valley, Calif.; and
Sandra Wiederhold, Kalamazoo, Mich.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Dajani, A.,
K. Taubert,
P. Ferrieri,
G. Peter, and S. Shulman.
1995.
Treatment of acute streptococcal pharyngitis and prevention of rheumatic fever: a statement for health professionals.
Pediatrics
96:758-764 |
| 2. | Feldman, S., A. L. Bisno, L. Lott, R. Dodge, and R. E. Jackson. 1987. Efficacy of benzathine penicillin G in group A streptococcal pharyngitis: reevaluation. J. Pediatr. 110:783-787[Medline]. |
| 3. | Gastanaduy, A. S., E. L. Kaplan, B. B. Huwe, C. McKay, and L. W. Wannamaker. 1980. Failure of penicillin to eradicate group A streptococci during an outbreak of pharyngitis. Lancet ii:498-502. |
| 3a. | Gooch, W. M., III, J. Hedrick, J. McCarty, and M. A. Nemeth. 1995. Comparative safety and efficacy of cefdinir (CDR) and penicillin V-K (PEN) in the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsilitis, abstr. LM46, p. 335. In Program and Abstracts of the 35th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 4. | Holm, S., C. Henning, E. Grahn, H. Lomberg, and H. Staley. 1995. Is penicillin the appropriate treatment for recurrent tonsillopharyngitis? Results from a comparative randomized blind study of cefuroxime axetil and phenoxymethylpenicillin in children. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 27:221-228[Medline]. |
| 5. |
Johnson, D. R., and E. L. Kaplan.
1993.
A review of the correlation of T-agglutination patterns and M-protein typing and opacity factor production in the identification of group A streptococci.
J. Med. Microbiol.
38:311-315 |
| 6. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1993. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Approved standard M7-A3. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Villanova, Pa. |
| 7. |
Neu, H. C.,
G. Saha, and N.-X. Chin.
1989.
Comparative in vitro activity and -lactamase stability of FK482, a new oral cephalosporin.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
33:1795-1800 |
| 8. |
Pichichero, M. E.,
W. M. Gooch,
W. Rodriguez,
J. L. Blumer,
S. C. Aronoff,
R. F. Jacobs, and J. M. Musser.
1994.
Effective short-course treatment of acute group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis.
Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med.
148:1053-1060 |
| 9. | Pichichero, M. E., and P. A. Margolis. 1991. A comparison of cephalosporins and penicillins in the treatment of group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal pharyngitis: a meta-analysis supporting the concept of microbial copathogenicity. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 10:275-281[Medline]. |
| 10. | Portier, H., P. Chavanet, A. Waldner, et al. 1994. Five versus ten days treatment of streptococcal pharyngotonsillitis: a randomized controlled trial comparing cefpodoxime proxetil and phenoxymethyl penicillin. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 26:59-66[Medline]. |
| 11. | Searle, S. R. 1971. Linear models. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y. |
| 12. | Shulman, S. T., M. A. Gerber, R. R. Tanz, and M. Markowitz. 1994. Streptococcal pharyngitis: the case for penicillin therapy. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 13:1-7[Medline]. |
| 13. | Stillerman, M. 1986. Comparison of oral cephalosporins with penicillin therapy for group A streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 5:649-654. |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»