Print E-mail
Volume 34, Number 3, September 2001

Comparative study of ceftibuten and cefixime in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections


Mao-Wang Ho, Fu-Der Wang, Chang-Phone Fung, Cheng-Yi Liu
Department of Medicine, China Medical College Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC

 

Methods:

Between August 1996 and May 1998, a total of 62 patients who had complicated urinary tract infections treated at the Taipei Veterans General Hospital were enrolled into this study. This prospective, randomized, open-labeled trial aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of ceftibuten and cefixime, prescribed each at a dose of 200 mg twice daily, in treating complicated urinary tract infection. Seventeen patients were later excluded from the analysis because of resistant pathogens (7 patients), uncomplicated urinary tract infection (6), initial culture negative for bacteria (3), and infective endocarditis (1). The remaining 45 patients were categorized into ceftibuten (n=23; mean age, 71.3 years) and cefixime (n=22; mean age, 62.8 years) treatment groups. No significant difference in demographic data and clinical characteristics was found between the 2 groups. The clinical efficacy rate (78.3% vs 77.3%, p=0.9) and bacteriological eradication rate (52.2% vs 63.6%, p=0.08) were similar between the ceftibuten and the cefixime group. Adverse effects caused by ceftibuten treatment included diarrhea and slight elevation of the serum level of liver transaminase in 2 (6.5%) patients. Those caused by cefixime treatment included slight elevation of serum level of liver transaminase in 2 (6.5%) patients and skin rash in 1 (3.2%) patient. All of these adverse effects resolved quickly after the regimen had been completed, and no patient discontinued the regimen because of the adverse effects. The results suggest that oral administration of ceftibuten 200 mg twice daily is as effective and safe as oral administration of cefixime 200 mg twice daily in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections.

 



 

J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2001;34:185-189.