Together with cephamycins, they constitute a subgroup of β-lactam antibiotics called cephems. Cephalosporins were discovered in 1945, and first sold in 1964.[4]
Cephalosporin contains a 6-membered dihydrothiazine ring. Substitutions at position 3 generally affect pharmacology; substitutions at position 7 affect antibacterial activity, but these cases are not always true.[6]
Medical uses
Cephalosporins can be indicated for the prophylaxis and treatment of infections caused by bacteria susceptible to this particular form of antibiotic. First-generation cephalosporins are active predominantly against Gram-positive bacteria, such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus.[7] They are therefore used mostly for skin and soft tissue infections and the prevention of hospital-acquired surgical infections.[8] Successive generations of cephalosporins have increased activity against Gram-negative bacteria, albeit often with reduced activity against Gram-positive organisms.[citation needed]
The antibiotic may be used for patients who are allergic to penicillin due to the different β-lactam antibiotic structure. The drug is able to be excreted in the urine.[7]
The commonly quoted figure of 10% of patients with allergic hypersensitivity to penicillins and/or carbapenems also having cross-reactivity with cephalosporins originated from a 1975 study looking at the original cephalosporins,[9] and subsequent "safety first" policy meant this was widely quoted and assumed to apply to all members of the group.[10] Hence, it was commonly stated that they are contraindicated in patients with a history of severe, immediate allergic reactions (urticaria, anaphylaxis, interstitial nephritis, etc.) to penicillins or carbapenems.[11]
The contraindication, however, should be viewed in the light of recent epidemiological work suggesting, for many second-generation (or later) cephalosporins, the cross-reactivity rate with penicillin is much lower, having no significantly increased risk of reactivity over the first generation based on the studies examined.[10][12] The British National Formulary previously issued blanket warnings of 10% cross-reactivity, but, since the September 2008 edition, suggests, in the absence of suitable alternatives, oral cefixime or cefuroxime and injectable cefotaxime, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone can be used with caution, but the use of cefaclor, cefadroxil, cefalexin, and cefradine should be avoided.[13] A 2012 literature review similarly finds that the risk is negligible with third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins. The risk with first-generation cephalosporins having similar R1 sidechains was also found to be overestimated, with the real value closer to 1%.[14]
Cephalosporins are bactericidal and, like other β-lactam antibiotics, disrupt the synthesis of the peptidoglycan layer forming the bacterial cell wall. The peptidoglycan layer is important for cell wall structural integrity. The final transpeptidation step in the synthesis of the peptidoglycan is facilitated by penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). PBPs bind to the D-Ala-D-Ala at the end of muropeptides (peptidoglycan precursors) to crosslink the peptidoglycan. Beta-lactam antibiotics mimic the D-Ala-D-Ala site, thereby irreversibly inhibiting PBP crosslinking of peptidoglycan.[20]
The cephalosporin nucleus can be modified to gain different properties. Cephalosporins are sometimes grouped into "generations" by their antimicrobial properties.[citation needed]
The first cephalosporins were designated first-generation cephalosporins, whereas, later, more extended-spectrum cephalosporins were classified as second-generation cephalosporins. Each newer generation has significantly greater Gram-negative antimicrobial properties than the preceding generation, in most cases with decreased activity against Gram-positive organisms. Fourth-generation cephalosporins, however, have true broad-spectrum activity.[23]
The classification of cephalosporins into "generations" is commonly practised, although the exact categorization is often imprecise. For example, the fourth generation of cephalosporins is not recognized as such in Japan.[citation needed] In Japan, cefaclor is classed as a first-generation cephalosporin, though in the United States it is a second-generation one; and cefbuperazone, cefminox, and cefotetan are classed as second-generation cephalosporins.
Some state that cephalosporins can be divided into five or even six generations, although the usefulness of this organization system is of limited clinical relevance.[25]
Naming
Most first-generation cephalosporins were originally spelled "ceph-" in English-speaking countries. This continues to be the preferred spelling in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, while European countries (including the United Kingdom) have adopted the International Nonproprietary Names, which are always spelled "cef-". Newer first-generation cephalosporins and all cephalosporins of later generations are spelled "cef-", even in the United States.[citation needed]
Activity
There exist bacteria which cannot be treated with cephalosporins of generations first through fourth:[26]
Gram-positive: Activity against penicillinase-producing, methicillin-susceptible staphylococci and streptococci (though they are not the drugs of choice for such infections). No activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci or enterococci.[citation needed]
Gram-positive: Some members of this group (in particular, those available in an oral formulation, and those with antipseudomonal activity) have decreased activity against gram-positive organisms.
Activity against staphylococci and streptococci is less with the third-generation compounds than with the first- and second-generation compounds.[29]
Gram-negative: Third-generation cephalosporins have a broad spectrum of activity and further increased activity against gram-negative organisms. They may be particularly useful in treating hospital-acquired infections, although increasing levels of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases are reducing the clinical utility of this class of antibiotics. They are also able to penetrate the central nervous system, making them useful against meningitis caused by pneumococci, meningococci, H. influenzae, and susceptible E. coli, Klebsiella, and penicillin-resistant N. gonorrhoeae. Since August 2012, the third-generation cephalosporin, ceftriaxone, is the only recommended treatment for gonorrhea in the United States (in addition to azithromycin or doxycycline for concurrent Chlamydia treatment). Cefixime is no longer recommended as a first-line treatment due to evidence of decreasing susceptibility.[30]
Gram-positive: They are extended-spectrum agents with similar activity against Gram-positive organisms as first-generation cephalosporins.[citation needed]
Ceftobiprole has been described as "fifth-generation" cephalosporin,[34][35] though acceptance for this terminology is not universal. Ceftobiprole has anti-pseudomonal activity and appears to be less susceptible to development of resistance. Ceftaroline has also been described as "fifth-generation" cephalosporin, but does not have the activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa or vancomycin-resistant enterococci that ceftobiprole has.[36]Ceftolozane is an option for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections and complicated urinary tract infections. It is combined with the β-lactamase inhibitor tazobactam, as multi-drug resistant bacterial infections will generally show resistance to all β-lactam antibiotics unless this enzyme is inhibited.[37][38][39][40][41]
These cephems have progressed far enough to be named, but have not been assigned to a particular generation. Nitrocefin is a chromogenic cephalosporin substrate, and is used for detection of β-lactamases.[citation needed]
^Dash CH (1 September 1975). "Penicillin allergy and the cephalosporins". The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 1 (3 Suppl): 107–118. doi:10.1093/jac/1.suppl_3.107. PMID1201975.
^Campagna JD, Bond MC, Schabelman E, Hayes BD (May 2012). "The use of cephalosporins in penicillin-allergic patients: a literature review". The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 42 (5): 612–620. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.05.035. PMID21742459.
^Kosinski MA, Joseph WS (July 2007). "Update on the treatment of diabetic foot infections". Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery. 24 (3): 383–96, vii. doi:10.1016/j.cpm.2007.03.009. PMID17613382.
^Kollef MH (December 2009). "New antimicrobial agents for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus". Critical Care and Resuscitation. 11 (4): 282–286. PMID20001879.
