ArticleBMC pharmacology & toxicology2025
Quality evaluation of cephalexin, cefuroxime, and ceftriaxone medicines marketed in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia with three tier level approach and anti-microbial assays.
Article in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of substandard and falsified (SF) medicines hinders progresses towards sustainable development goals in providing quality health care. It is posed as major public health threat. Cephalosporin are beta-lactam antibiotics used for treating penicillin resistant infections and are widely prescribed. Three tiered level approach is a quality assessment methodology that consists of visual and physical inspection of labelling, packaging, and inserts of the dosage form and then performing rapid screening and finally carrying out full pharmacopoeial tests.
objectivesIt is aimed at assessing the quality of three cephalosporin medicines marketed in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia.
methodsDifferent cephalosporin products for post market quality survey were collected from different health care systems in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Purposive sampling was employed for sample collection using the WHO and National Regulatory Authority (NRA) guidelines. A total of 56 samples (13 cefuroxime axetil tablets, 21 cephalexin capsules, and 22 samples of ceftriaxone powder for injections) were collected. All samples had been subjected to visual inspection, then screening test with GPHF-minilab™ protocol, and later confirmatory physicochemical tests per U.S. Pharmacopoeia monograph (USP 44-NF39) methods. Finally, antimicrobial effectiveness tests were carried out.
resultsAll samples had passed visual inspections and screening test with GPHF-minilab™. Twenty-four samples were subjected for further confirmatory tests. All samples complied for the dissolution and assay tests with USP 44-NF39 specifications. However, two samples, each from cephalexin capsule and ceftriaxone powder for injection failed to meet the uniformity of dosage units' test. Cephalexin capsule and cefuroxime axetil tablets were found to be more active against S. aureus (with zone of inhibition (Z.O.I.) as 28.7 mm and 32.1 mm, respectively), while ceftriaxone was found to be most effective against P. mirabilis (Z.O.I. as 33.39 mm). For antimicrobial assays, 24 (samples) multiplied by 5 (microorganism types) with total amount of 120 antibiograms were generated. Eighty-five (85) were found to be sensitive, 15 intermediate and 20 resistants.
conclusionThe tested medicinal products were of good quality. However, there are differences in the antimicrobial activity effectiveness results against tested bacterial strains. It implies that resistance to Cephalosprins' is emerging in the study area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.