Review Article
Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Use of Cephalosporin Antibiotics

https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.2600641202Get rights and content

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (277)

  • R.S. Griffith et al.

    Med. Clin. N. Amer.

    (1970)
  • G.L. Boyle et al.

    Amer. J. Ophthalmol

    (1970)
  • S. Riegelman

    J. Pharm. Sci.

    (1968)
  • J. Wagner

    J. Pharm. Sci.

    (1969)
  • J.S. Welles
  • C.H. Nightingale D.R. Flanagan R. Quintiliani unpublished...
  • T.M. Spright et al.

    Drugs

    (1972)
  • A.C. Kind et al.

    Antimicrob. Ag. Chemother.

    (1968)
  • P. Braun et al.

    Appl. Microbiol

    (1968)
  • B.R. Meyers et al.

    Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.

    (1969)
  • P.E. Gower et al.

    J. Pharm. Pharmacol.

    (1973)
  • W.P. Leary et al.

    S. Afr. Med. J.

    (1972)
  • P.W. Muggleton et al.

    Antimicrob. Ag. Chemother.-1968

    (1969)
  • P.E. Gower et al.

    Brit. J. Pharmacol.

    (1969)
  • P. Nicholas et al.

    J. Clin. Pharmacol.

    (1973)
  • R.L. Perkins et al.

    Amer. J. Med. Sci.

    (1968)
  • C.H. O'Callaghan et al.

    J. Pharm. Pharmacol.

    (1971)
  • V. Cox et al.

    Henry Ford Hosp. Med. J.

    (1970)
  • C. Henning et al.

    Scand. J. Infect. Dis.

    (1970)
  • T.S. Thornhill et al.

    Appl. Microbiol.

    (1969)
  • S.A. Kabins et al.

    Amer. J. Med. Sci.

    (1970)
  • C.M. Kunin et al.

    Ann. Intern. Med.

    (1970)
  • R.S. Griffith et al.

    Clin. Med.

    (1968)
  • L.N. Roberts

    J. Clin. Pharmacol.

    (1973)
  • H. Clark et al.

    Antimicrob. Ag. Chemother.

    (1968)
  • A.N. Walker et al.

    Advances in Antimicrobial and Antineoplastic Chemotherapy

    (1972)
  • R.D. Foord et al.
  • R. Fujii M. Konno K. Ubukata Proceedings of a Symposium on the Clinical Evaluation of Cephalexin,...
  • R. Boothman et al.

    Arch. Dis. Child.

    (1973)
  • V.W. Marget et al.

    Arzneim.-Forsch.

    (1969)
  • V.W. Marget

    Postgrad. Med. J.

    (1971)
  • F. Cockburn et al.

    Advances in Antimicrobial and Antineoplastic Chemotherapy

    (1972)
  • J.A. Davies et al.

    Postgrad. Med. J.

    (1970)
  • H.R. Sullivan et al.

    J. Infect. Dis.

    (1969)
  • J.S. Welles et al.

    Antimicrob. Ag. Chemother.-1968

    (1969)
  • P. Orsolini

    Postgrad. Med. J.

    (1970)
  • J.E.L. Sales et al.

    Brit. Med. J.

    (1972)
  • J.M. Brogard et al.

    Pathol.-Biol.

    (1971)
  • C.F. Speirs et al.

    Brit. J. Pharmacol.

    (1971)
  • G.M. Halpern et al.

    Antimicrob. Ag. Chemother.

    (1973)
  • T. Bergen et al.

    Pharmacology

    (1970)
  • J.A. Raeburn

    Advances in Antimicrobial and Antineoplastic Chemotherapy

    (1972)
  • H.R. Sullivan et al.

    J. Antibiot. (Tokyo)

    (1969)
  • W.M.M. Kirby et al.

    Postgrad. Med. J.

    (1971)
  • J.B. DeMaine et al.

    Antimicrob. Ag. Chemother.

    (1970)
  • W.M.M. Kirby et al.

    J. Infect. Dis.

    (1973)
  • J.A. Davies et al.

    J. Clin. Pathol.

    (1972)
  • P.E. Gower et al.

    Advances in Antimicrobial and Antineoplastic Chemotherapy

    (1972)
  • C.O. Solberg et al.

    Chemotherapy

    (1973)
  • Cited by (190)

    • The potential impact of discrepancies between automated susceptibility platforms and other testing metho`dologies for cefazolin in the treatment of Enterobacterales bloodstream infections

      2021, Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
      Citation Excerpt :

      Turnidge, 2011) Based on the previous Monte Carlo simulations and consideration of commonly used clinical dosing strategies, it was suggested that the breakpoints be increased by 1, 2-fold dilution (susceptible, ≤2 µg/mL; intermediate, 4 µg/mL; and resistant, >8 µg/mL) based on a dosing strategy of CFZ 2g q8h, leading to a probability of target attainment (PTA) of greater than 90%. ( Nightingale et al., 1975; Scheld et al., 1981; Turnidge, 2011) Though the CLSI revised these breakpoints years ago, the FDA has yet to recognize the adjustment. ( Research C for DE and. Cefazolin 2018) Due to regulatory issues and practical limitations of approved automated susceptibility testing (AST) platforms, this has resulted in difficulties in clinical application of AST results. (

    • The impact of revised CLSI cefazolin breakpoints on the clinical outcomes of Escherichia coli bacteremia

      2016, Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection
      Citation Excerpt :

      The choice of cefazolin breakpoints (susceptible, ≤ 1 μg/mL) was based on the conventional dose of cefazolin (i.e., 1 g every 8 hours) according to Monte Carlo Simulation in two pharmacokinetic studies of cefazolin.3,4 However, the target attainment rates for 50% T > MIC can achieve 94∼100% at the dose of 2 g every 8 hours suggested that a breakpoint of susceptibility of ≤ 2 μg/mL may be acceptable.3,4 To prevent the impact of eliminating cefazolin as a useful agent for the treatment and prevention of infections caused by some common Enterobacteriaceae without a resistance mechanism, the breakpoints of cefazolin for Enterobacteriaceae were further revised by the CLSI in 2011 (i.e., susceptible, ≤ 2 μg/mL; intermediate, 4 μg/mL; and resistant, ≥ 8 μg/mL, based on a dosage regimen of 2 g every 8 hours).5,6

    • Impact of revised susceptibility breakpoints on bacteremia of Klebsiella pneumoniae: Minimum inhibitory concentration of cefazolin and clinical outcomes

      2016, Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection
      Citation Excerpt :

      According to PK-PD data, the cefazolin susceptibility breakpoint of 2 μg/mL based on a higher dosage regimen (2 g every 8 hours) was suggested by CLSI 2011.28 The decision for the revised breakpoints by CLSI 201128 was based on the Monte Carlo simulation analysis.26,27 The target attainment rates for 50% T > MIC can achieve 94% for the isolates with a cefazolin MIC of 1 μg/mL and 64% for those of 2 μg/mL at the conventional dose regimen of 1 g every 8 hours.26

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text