Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cefminox versus Cefoxitin in Hysterectomy Prophylaxis

Clinical Efficacy and Serum and Tissue Concentrations

  • Clinical Use
  • Published:
Clinical Drug Investigation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

This phase III, prospective, randomised, open, controlled clinical trial compared the efficacy of single-dose cefminox (2g) versus triple-dose cefoxitin (2g every 4 hours) as antibiotic prophylaxis in 112 women undergoing gynaecological surgery (vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy). Peak, intraoperative and trough serum concentrations were determined for both antibiotics, as well as their concentrations in myometrial tissue in a subset of patients from the study (22 patients from the cefminox group and 18 from the cefoxitin group). Clinical response was satisfactory in all women treated with cefminox (59 of 59) and in 52 of 53 patients treated with cefoxitin. Fever-related morbidity, hospital stay and adverse reactions were similar in both groups. Peak serum concentrations were 132.3 mg/L for cefminox and 82.2 mg/L for cefoxitin. 12-hour concentrations were 2.82 mg/L for cefminox and 2.17 mg/L for cefoxitin, and were higher than the respective minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for pathogens commonly associated with this pathology. Uterine tissue concentrations were 24.5 and 41.6 mg/L for cefminox and cefoxitin, respectively, and also clearly exceeded MIC. It was shown that the use of a single preoperative dose of cefminox was similar in efficacy to 3 doses of cefoxitin administered every 4 hours, and that the serum and tissue concentrations attained provide adequate antibiotic coverage. In view of the general trend towards the use of a single dose for prophylaxis, cefminox offers a new alternative for antibiotic prophylaxis in gynaecological surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Roy S, Wilkins J, Azen C. Comparative efficacy and safety of cefmetazole or cefoxitin in the prevention of postoperative infection following vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 23 Suppl D: 109–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Richards WR. An evaluation of the local use sulfonamides drugs in certain gynecological operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1943; 46: 541–5

    Google Scholar 

  3. Goosember J, Emich JP, Schwarts RH. Prophylactic antibiotics in vaginal hysterectomies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1969; 105: 503–6

    Google Scholar 

  4. Allen JM, Rampone JF, Wheeless CR. Use of prophylactic antibiotic in elective major gynecologic operations. Obstet Gynecol 1972; 39: 218–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ledger WJ, Gee L, Lewis WP. Guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1975; 121: 1038–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Davi E, Ausin J, Escofet C, et al. Cefoxitin versus placebo in the prophylaxis of postoperative infection in abdominal hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1985; 237: 377

    Google Scholar 

  7. Galask RP. Vaginal flora and its role in disease entities. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1976; 19: 61–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gorbach SH. Anaerobic microflora of the cervix in healthy women. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1973; 117: 1053–75

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sweet RL, Gibbs RS. Infectious disease of the female genital tract. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gorbach SL, Condon RE, Conte JE, et al. Evaluation of new anti-infective drugs for surgical prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15: S313–S338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shapiro M. Perioperative prophylactic use of antibiotics in surgery: principles and practice. Infect Control 1982; 3: 38–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Clasen DC, Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, et al. The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and risk of surgical wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 281–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wenzel RP. Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 337–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mandell G, Douglas G, Bennet J. Manual de terapeútica anti-microbiana. Principios y práctica de las enfermedades infecciosas. Ed Panamericana 1992; 6: 88–9

    Google Scholar 

  15. Martínez Beltrán J, Loza E, Ródenas E, et al. Cefminox (MT Mi). Comparative activity with other cephamycins in bacteremic isolates. In: American Society for Microbiology, Program and Abstracts of the 30th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy [abstract 875]. Atlanta, GA; Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1990; 232

    Google Scholar 

  16. Aguilar L, Esteban C, Frías J, et al. Cefminox: Correlation between in vitro susceptibility and pharmacokinetics and serum bactericidal activity in healthy volunteers. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994; 33: 91–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ito K, Hayasaki M, Tamaya T. Pharmacokinetics of cephem antibiotics in exudate of pelvic retroperitoneal space after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 1160–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Naranjo CA, Bustos V, Sellers EM et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981; 30: 239–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Shinkai S, Ogawa T, Fujita M, et al. The studies on assay method of MT-141 levels in biological fluids. Chemotherapy Tokyo 1984; 32 (5 Suppl.): 59–66

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Quintiliani R, Nightingale Ch, Stevens RC, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics of cefotetan and cefoxitin in patients undergoing hysterectomies and colorectal operations. Am J Surg 1988; 155(5A): 67–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Alexander DEP, Becker JM. Cefoxitin disposition in colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 1988; 208: 162–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hyatt JM, McKinnon PS, Zimmer GS, et al. The importance of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic surrogate markers to outcome: focus on antibacterial agents. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995; 28/2: 143–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sawchuk RJ, Zaske DE, Cipolle RJ, et al. Kinetic model for gentamicin dosing with the use of individual patient parameters. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1977; 21: 362–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. White RL, Nightingale CH, Quintiliani R, et al. Serum and tissue concentrations of cefoxitin and cefotaxime in women undergoing hysterectomy. Drugs 1988; 35 (Suppl. 2): 72–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hemsell DL. Prophylactic antibiotics in gynecologic and obstetric surgery. Rev Infect Dis 1991; 13 (10 Suppl.): S821–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kamiya I, Nishio M, Murata S, et al. A novel method to predict the elimination half lives and the renal excretion mechanisms of cephalosporins. J Pharm Dyn 1984; 7: 545–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nakawaga K, Koyama M, Miyazaki M, et al. Phase I clinical study of MT-141. Chemotherapy Tokyo 1984; 32 (5 Suppl.): 104–13

    Google Scholar 

  28. Brogden R, Heel R, Speight T, et al. Cefoxitin: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacological properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 1979; 17: 1–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Mandell GL, Bennet JE, Dolin R. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. Churchill Livingstone Inc 1995. Part IV Sec C: 2749

    Google Scholar 

  30. Díez M, Ruíz-Feliu B, Ródenas E, et al. Single dose cefminox versus triple-dose cefoxitin as antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. Curr Ther Res 1996; 57(7): 559–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Valme University Hospital, Seville, Spain

    R. Garrido, L. Carrasco, M. J. de Dios, J. M. Romo, M. Sánchez, M. Vargas &  Virginia Caballero Fernández

  2. Department of Gynaecology, Galicia General Hospital, La Coruña, Spain

    A. Novo, S. Quintana, M. Maciá, F. Lapuente & Y. Mieza

  3. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, ‘La Paz’ Hospital, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University, Madrid, Spain

    M. A. Macía, A. J. Carcas & J. Frías

  4. R & D Department, Tedec-Meiji Farma, SA, Madrid, Spain

    P. Coronet & M. Gimeno

Authors
  1. R. Garrido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Novo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Quintana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. A. Macía
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. Carrasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. J. de Dios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. M. Romo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Vargas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. M. Maciá
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. F. Lapuente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Y. Mieza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. P. Coronet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. M. Gimeno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. A. J. Carcas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. J. Frías
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Virginia Caballero Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garrido, R., Novo, A., Quintana, S. et al. Cefminox versus Cefoxitin in Hysterectomy Prophylaxis. Clin. Drug Invest. 13, 317–325 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-199713060-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-199713060-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation