Anthony Ssebagereka*

School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Uganda

*Corresponding Author: Anthony Ssebagereka, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Uganda.

Received: December 28, 2022; Published: January 06, 2023

Abstract

Introduction: Antibiotic therapy has for a long time been a critical aspect of health care. Ceftriaxone is widely used for empirical antibacterial therapy among Healthcare facilities in Uganda. Antibacterial potency of ceftriaxone is the relative measure that compares doses of different brands required to produce the same bactericidal effect. Reports of widely differing antibiotic activity and clinical outcomes for ceftriaxone brands, from medical professionals, has raised many questions about their potency. The study aim was to determine the relative potency of the different ceftriaxone brands compared to the innovator brand.

Methods: Eleven Ceftriaxone brands on the market were obtained from the pharmacies and drug shops in Mbarara Municipality, including two brands obtained from the public hospital supply chain. Broth macro-dilution technique were used to determine the MIC (Minimum inhibitory concentration) and consequently, the MBC (Minimum Bactericidal Concentration) for each ceftriaxone brand against Escherichia coli (representative of gram negative bacteria) and Staphylococcus aureus (a representative of gram positive bacteria). Thereafter, the potency ratio (MBC of Innovator brand: MBC of a given ceftriaxone brand) was calculated.

Results: Generally, all the brands were found to be unreasonably less potent than the innovator (reference) brand. However, two brands had the lowest potency ratios (0.25% and 0.5%, respectively against Escherichia coli and 5% against Staphylococcus aureus), while the innovator brand and one other brand were the most potent brands (50% against Staphylococcus aureus and 100% against Escherichia coli), exhibiting the lowest MBCs. The two brands supplied in the public hospital, had percentage potency ratios of 10% and 40%, respectively against Staphylococcus aureus and 10% and 2.5%, respectively against Escherichia coli.

Conclusion: The ceftriaxone brands exhibited widely varying antibacterial activity with inferior bactericidal properties compared to the reference brand. Most of the ceftriaxone brands were largely bacteriostatic rather than bactericidal. In addition, the generic brands generally exhibited much lower potency against Staphylococcus aureus than Escherichia coli when compared with the reference brand. Further investigations ought to focus on quantification of the Active ingredient, chemical purity, and in-vivo activity of ceftriaxone brands, as well as monitor and assess efficacies and potencies for medicines especially antibiotics.

Keywords: Ceftriaxone; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Treatment Outcome

References

1. Payasi A., et al. “Pharmacokinetic study of sulbactomax”. The Journal of Toxicological Sciences4 (2010): 459-464.
2. “Lupin Files ANDAs for Ceftriaxone and Cefotaxime” (2013).
3. Curtis L. “Stedman's Electronic Medical Dictionary (Version 7)”. Reference Reviews (2013).
4. Hendriksen RS and Larsen J. “Global Salm-Surv: A global Salmonella surveillance and laboratory support project of the World Health Organization”. Laboratory Protocols (2003).
5. Dafale NA., et al. “Selection of appropriate analytical tools to determine the potency and bioactivity of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance”. Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis4 (2016): 207-213.
6. Andrews JM. “Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations”. Journal of antimicrobial Chemotherapy 48 (2001): 5-16.
7. Lineage Medical L. “Efficacy vs. Potency” (2011).
8. “Definition of Potency” (2011).
9. Mullins J., et al. “Abstracts from AIDS Vaccine 2010 Atlanta, Georgia, USA 28 September–1 October, 2010”. AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses10 (2010): A-1-A-184.
10. “Homeopathic” (2016).
11. Masterton R., et al. “Appropriate antimicrobial treatment in nosocomial infections—the clinical challenges”. Journal of Hospital Infection 55 (2003): 1-12.
12. Katzung BG., et al. “Basic and clinical pharmacology”. McGraw-Hill Medical New York; (2011).
13. Mukherjee ABA. “The Importance of Generic Drugs in India”.
14. Are Generic Drugs as Effective as Brand Name? - Not Always! (2017).
15. Simon AH. “Elsevier's Dictionary of Medicine: Spanish-English and English-Spanishabout 28,000 Terms”. Elsevier; (2014).
16. FDA Acts to Ensure Thyroid Drugs Don’t Lose Potency Before Expiration Date: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; (2007).
17. Leekha S., et al. “General principles of antimicrobial therapy”. Mayo Clinic Proceedings (2011).
18. Scarborough M and Thwaites GE. “The diagnosis and management of acute bacterial meningitis in resource-poor settings”. The Lancet Neurology7 (2008): 637-648.
19. Zuluaga AF., et al. “Application of microbiological assay to determine pharmaceutical equivalence of generic intravenous antibiotics”. BMC Clinical Pharmacology1 (2009): 1.
20. Beskid G., et al. “In vivo activity of ceftriaxone (Ro 13-9904), a new broad-spectrum semisynthetic cephalosporin”. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy2 (1981): 159-167.
21. Buck H and Parry‐Billings M. “Discriminating measures of bronchodilator drug efficacy and potency”. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology3 (2001): 245-253.
22. Pottumarthy S., et al. “Bactericidal activity of cefepime and ceftriaxone tested against Streptococcus pneumoniae”. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease3 (2007): 345-349.
23. Nkang A., et al. “Assessment of the efficacies, potencies and bacteriological qualities of some of the antibiotics sold in Calabar, Nigeria”. African Journal of Biotechnology41 (2010): 6987-7002.
24. Rodriguez CA., et al. “In vitro and in vivo comparison of the anti-staphylococcal efficacy of generic products and the innovator of oxacillin”. BMC Infectious Diseases1 (2010): 153.
25. Taylor R., et al. “Pharmacopoeial quality of drugs supplied by Nigerian pharmacies”. The Lancet9272 (2001): 1933-1936.
26. Silva E., et al. “Comparative in vitro study of the antimicrobial activities of different commercial antibiotic products for intravenous administration”. BMC Clinical Pharmacology1 (2010): 3.
27. Immaculata P and Abraham I. “Quality assurance for pharmaceutical products”. Laboratory Biosafety Manual, 2^nd Edition, CV Mosby Company, Bribane: Australia. (1990): 490-506.
28. Okeke IN., et al. “Growing problem of multidrug-resistant enteric pathogens in Africa”. Emerging Infectious Diseases11 (2007): 1640.
29. Tattevin P., et al. “Efficacy and quality of antibacterial generic products approved for human use: a systematic review”. Clinical Infectious Diseases4 (2013): 458-469.
30. Thapa B and Mahat K. “In-vitro activity of three brands of ceftriaxone against different clinical isolates”. JNMA; Journal of the Nepal Medical Association179 (2010): 225-227.
31. Tippa DMR and Singh N. “Reconstitution stability of ceftriaxone sodium for injection in intravenous diluents”. Pharm Sinica2 (2010): 24-30.
32. Okorie O., et al. “Pharmaceutical Quality Analysis of Ceftriaxone Sodium Brands Marketed in Southern Nigeria”. British Journal of Pharmaceutical Research5 (2016): 1-8.
33. Naimi H., et al. “Assessment of the price-efficacy relationship for multiple brands of ceftriaxone sodium in Kabul: a cross-sectional study”. BMC Research Notes1 (2016): 86.
34. Barry AL., et al. “Methods for determining bactericidal activity of antimicrobial agents: approved guideline”. NCCLS document M26-A 19.18 (1999).

Citation

Citation: Anthony Ssebagereka. “Low Antibacterial Potency of Ceftriaxone Brands in Mbarara Municipality, Uganda”.Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 7.2 (2023): 26-36.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Anthony Ssebagereka. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.