Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1772564
Original Article

Activity of Cefotaxime versus Ceftriaxone against Pathogens Isolated from Various Systemic Infections: A Prospective, Multicenter, Comparative, In vitro Indian Study

Ajitkumar A. Gondane
1   Medical Affairs, Alkem Laboratories, Mumbai, India
,
Dattatray B. Pawar
1   Medical Affairs, Alkem Laboratories, Mumbai, India
› Author Affiliations Funding A. A. G. and D. B. P. reported financial support for this study was provided by Alkem Laboratories, Mumbai.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives To determine the susceptibility of isolated pathogens with different samples collected from patients taking cefotaxime as compared with ceftriaxone.

Methods In vitro susceptibility study was conducted at microbiology laboratories of east (Bhubaneshwar), west (Ahmedabad), north (Delhi), and south (Srikakulam) India. Samples of treatment naïve patients with various clinical infections were included if they were positive for bacterial culture. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and zone of inhibitions (ZoIs) for each isolate were determined using Ezy MIC strip test and disk diffusion methods, respectively. Findings of MIC and ZoI were interpreted as per the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Appropriate statistical tests were used.

Results Four hundred clinical samples of urinary tract infection (42.75%), lower respiratory tract infection (20.75%), skin and soft tissue infection (16.75%), and sepsis (12.75%) were evaluated. Escherichia coli (47.75%) was the most common organism isolated followed by Klebsiella (26%), Salmonella (7.75%), and Proteus mirabilis (3.75%). The mean MIC values for E. coli, Klebsiella, Staphylococcus, Citrobacter koseri, and Serratia marcescens were found to be lower when treated with cefotaxime compared with ceftriaxone, although the difference was not statistically significant. However, cefotaxime produced significantly (p < 0.05) more ZoI for E. coli, Klebsiella, and Salmonella as compared with ceftriaxone.

Conclusion Cefotaxime has shown better sensitivity profile in terms of MIC and ZoI to most of the isolated organisms as compared with ceftriaxone and thus can be preferred for empirical treatment of such patients.

Keywords

antimicrobial - resistance - cephalosporins - strip test


Publication History

Received: 22 April 2023

Accepted: 18 July 2023

Article published online:
16 August 2023

© 2023. The Indian Association of Laboratory Physicians. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Carmine AA, Brogden RN, Heel RC, Speight TM, Avery GS. Cefotaxime. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacological properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 1983; 25 (03) 223-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Jones RN, Thornsberry C. Cefotaxime: a review of in vitro antimicrobial properties and spectrum of activity. Rev Infect Dis 1982; 4 (Suppl): S300-S315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Summary of Product Characteristics. Cefotaxime 1g powder for solution for injection vials. Bowmed Ibisqus Limited, UK; 2021. . Accessed March 22, 2023, at https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/8750/smpc
    Google Scholar
  • 4 National Treatment Guidelines for Antimicrobial Use in Infectious Diseases. Version 1.0 (2016). Accessed: March 22, 2023, at: https://www.ncdc.mohfw.gov.in/showfile.php?lid=649
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Nath SK, Foster GA, Mandell LA, Rotstein C. Antimicrobial activity of ceftriaxone compared with cefotaxime in the presence of serum albumin. Can J Infect Dis 1995; 6 (01) 21-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bhagat SB, Korukonda K. In vitro assay to determine the MIC90 of β-lactam and β-lactam – β-lactamase inhibitor against community acquired respiratory pathogens. Int J Sci Stud 2017; 4 (11) 93-96
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Cheesbrough M. District Laboratory Practice in Tropical Countries. 2nd ed. Part 2.. South Africa: Cambridge University Press; 2006: 1-434
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bauer AW, Kirby WMM, Sherris JC, Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol 1966; 45 (04) 493-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 M100-Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 32nd edition. Accessed: March 22, 2023, at: https://clsi.org/about/press-releases/clsi-publishes-m100-performance-standards-for-antimicrobial-susceptibility-testing-32nd-edition/
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Asari S, Horikawa M, Tsukamoto H, Hayashi C, Miyai K. [Susceptibility of clinical isolates to cefotaxime]. Jpn J Antibiot 1983; 36 (02) 277-289
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Asari S, Horikawa M, Tsukamoto H. et al. [Susceptibility of clinical isolates to cefotaxime. Comparison to new antibiotics latamoxef, cefoperazone, and ceftizoxime]. Jpn J Antibiot 1984; 37 (02) 267-278
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Miwatani T, Takeda Y, Kotera K. et al. [The antibacterial activity of new cephem antibiotics against clinical isolates. A comparison of the antibacterial activity of cefotaxime with 6 other antibiotics]. Jpn J Antibiot 1983; 36 (02) 260-276
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Alam M, Asma R, Chowdury SS, Rahimgir M. Sensitivity pattern of cefotaxime against common uropathogens in vitro in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Drugs Ther Perspect 2019; 35 (03) 145-149
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Richards DM, Heel RC, Brogden RN, Speight TM, Avery GS. Ceftriaxone. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacological properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 1984; 27 (06) 469-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Muvunyi V, Mpirimbanyi C, Katabogama JB. et al. Community- and hospital-acquired infections in surgical patients at a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Rwanda. World J Surg 2020; 44 (10) 3290-3298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Deguchi K, Fukuyama S, Nishimura Y. et al. [MICs and MBCs of cefotaxime, desacetylcefotaxime and ceftriaxone against four principal bacteria causing meningitis]. Jpn J Antibiot 1984; 37 (09) 1701-1713
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Smith CR, Petty BG, Hendrix CW. et al. Ceftriaxone compared with cefotaxime for serious bacterial infections. J Infect Dis 1989; 160 (03) 442-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Simmons BP, Gelfand MS, Grogan J, Craft B. Cefotaxime twice daily versus ceftriaxone once daily. A randomized controlled study in patients with serious infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 22 (1-2): 155-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bräutigam HH, Knothe H, Rangoonwala R. Impact of cefotaxime and ceftriaxone on the bowel and vaginal flora after single-dose prophylaxis in vaginal hysterectomy. Drugs 1988; 35 (Suppl. 02) 163-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Guggenbichler JP, Allerberger FJ, Dierich M. Influence of cephalosporines III generation with varying biliary excretion on fecal flora and emergence of resistant bacteria during and after cessation of therapy. Padiatr Padol 1986; 21 (04) 335-342
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Barson WJ, Miller MA, Brady MT, Powell DA. Prospective comparative trial of ceftriaxone vs. conventional therapy for treatment of bacterial meningitis in children. Pediatr Infect Dis 1985; 4 (04) 362-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Baumgartner J-D, Glauser MP. Tolerance study of ceftriaxone compared with amoxicillin in patients with pneumonia. Am J Med 1984; 77 (4C): 54-58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Scholz H, Hofmann T, Noack R, Edwards DJ, Stoeckel K. Prospective comparison of ceftriaxone and cefotaxime for the short-term treatment of bacterial meningitis in children. Chemotherapy 1998; 44 (02) 142-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schaad UB, Suter S, Gianella-Borradori A. et al. A comparison of ceftriaxone and cefuroxime for the treatment of bacterial meningitis in children. N Engl J Med 1990; 322 (03) 141-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Biner B, Öner N, Çeltik C. et al. Ceftriaxone-associated biliary pseudolithiasis in children. J Clin Ultrasound 2006; 34 (05) 217-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Azarkar G, Birjand MM, Ehsanbakhsh A, Bijari B, Abedini MR, Ziaee M. Ceftriaxone-associated nephrolithiasis and gallstone in adults. Drug Healthc Patient Saf 2018; 10: 103-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Arnold DM, Kukaswadia S, Nazi I. et al. A systematic evaluation of laboratory testing for drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia. J Thromb Haemost 2013; 11 (01) 169-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Zeng L, Wang C, Jiang M. et al. Safety of ceftriaxone in paediatrics: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child 2020; 105 (10) 981-985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wendt S, Ranft D, Rodloff AC, Lippmann N, Lübbert C. Switching from ceftriaxone to cefotaxime significantly contributes to reducing the burden of Clostridioides difficile infections. Open Forum Infect Dis 2020; 7 (09) ofaa312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Grohs P, Kernéis S, Sabatier B. et al. Fighting the spread of AmpC-hyperproducing Enterobacteriaceae: beneficial effect of replacing ceftriaxone with cefotaxime. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69 (03) 786-789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar