Advertisement

Cefmenoxime versus Cefoxitin in the Treatment of Serious Bacterial Infections

  • Author Footnotes
    b From the Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio, and the Department of Medicine and the Infectious Disease Service, Akron City Hospital, Akron, Ohio.
    James S. Tan
    Correspondence
    Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr. James S. Tan, 75 Arch Street, Suite 204, Akron, Ohio 44304.
    Footnotes
    b From the Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio, and the Department of Medicine and the Infectious Disease Service, Akron City Hospital, Akron, Ohio.
    Affiliations
    Akron, Ohio
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    b From the Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio, and the Department of Medicine and the Infectious Disease Service, Akron City Hospital, Akron, Ohio.
    Thomas M. File Jr.
    Footnotes
    b From the Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio, and the Department of Medicine and the Infectious Disease Service, Akron City Hospital, Akron, Ohio.
    Affiliations
    Akron, Ohio
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    b From the Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio, and the Department of Medicine and the Infectious Disease Service, Akron City Hospital, Akron, Ohio.
      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.
      A comparative study was conducted using cefmenoxime, a new extended spectrum cephalosporin, versus cefoxitin. Entry into the study was based on a computer-generated randomization (two cefmenoxime to one cefoxitin). An intravenous dose of cefmenoxime (0.5 to 1 g every six hours) or cefoxitin (1 to 2 g every six hours) was administered to patients suspected of having serious bacterial infections. Six patients had urinary tract infections. Four who received cefmenoxime, including two with positive blood cultures, had eradication of bacteremia. One of the two who received cefoxitin had significant bacteriuria, and the urine was clear after treatment. Twenty-four patients were treated for lower respiratory tract infections. All 15 patients who received cefmenoxime had clinical and bacteriologic cures: Two of the nine patients who received cefoxitin continued to have the pathogens at the end of the treatment period. Both patients had a neoplasm of the lung. All 11 patients who had soft tissue infections (nine of whom received cefmenoxime) responded well. Both antibiotics were well tolerated.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The American Journal of Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Neu HC
        • Labthavikul P
        In vitro activity and beta-lactamase stability of cefmenoxime.
        Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982; 22: 316-322
        • Stamm JM
        • Girolami RL
        • Shipkowitz NL
        • Bower RR
        Antimicrobial activity Qf cefmenoxime (SCE-1365).
        Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981; 19: 454-460