Cefaclor

Wilson, Robert

doi:10.1016/0924-8579(93)90053-8

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The pharmacokinetic parameter values for Cefaclor suspension in this trial were very similar to previously published data ( Glynne et al, 1978 ; Wilson, 1993 ; Chen et al, 2012 ). At the same time, available data suggested that dietary substances can alter the absorption rate and efficiency of oral cefaclor ( Oguma et al, 1991 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Cefaclor is considered as a broad-spectrum antibiotic that is effective against both Gram-positive and negative microorganisms such as Haemophilus influenzae and Klebsiella . It has a strong inhibitory effect on certain anaerobic microorganisms including Propionibacterium acnes ( Wilson, 1993 ; Rai et al, 2010 ). Cefaclor is widely used in clinical to treat a variety of bacterial infections, involving otitis media, lower respiratory tract infection, upper respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, skin infection and sinusitis ( Meyers, 2000 ; Sader et al, 2007 ; Chen et al, 2012 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pharmacokinetics and safety of the two oral cefaclor formulations in healthy chinese subjects in the fasting and postprandial states

Deng

Liu³

et al. 2022

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a phase I bioequivalence trial in healthy Chinese subjects in the fasting and postprandial states. The goal of this trial was to compare the pharmacokinetics and safety of the test preparation Cefaclor granule (Disha Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd.) and the reference preparation Cefaclor suspension (Ceclor®, Eli Lilly and Company). In this trial, 24 subjects were selected in the fasting and postprandial states, respectively. Enrolled subjects randomly accepted a single dose of 0.125 g Cefaclor granule or Cefaclor suspension. The washout period was set as 2 days. Blood samples were collected within 8 h after administration in the fasting state and within 10 h after administration in the postprandial state. Plasma concentrations were determined by Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC, Cmax) were used to evaluate bioequivalence of the two drugs. In the fasting trial, the geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals CIs) for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were 93.01% (85.96%–100.63%), 97.92% (96.49%–99.38%) and 97.95% (96.52%–99.41%), respectively. The GMR (90% CIs) for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ in postprandial state were 89.27% (81.97%–97.22%), 97.31% (95.98%–98.65%) and 97.31% (95.93%–98.71%), respectively. The 90% CIs of AUC and Cmax in the fasting and postprandial states were within the 80–125% bioequivalence range. Therefore, Cefaclor granule and Cefaclor suspension were bioequivalent and displayed similar safety profiles. Furthermore, food intake affected the pharmacokinetic parameters of both drugs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacokinetics and safety of the two oral cefaclor formulations in healthy chinese subjects in the fasting and postprandial states

Deng

Liu³

et al. 2022

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This however, is not the case with cefaclor which over the past 20 years, has demonstrated notable clinical success, but poor activity in vitro compared with its competitors [3][4][5]. We investigated this apparent discrepancy by looking in detail at the MIC methodology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%