What is the difference between cefadroxil (Cefadroxil) and cefixime (Cefixime) in treating bacterial infections?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 7, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Cefadroxil vs Cefixime: Key Differences in Bacterial Coverage and Clinical Use

Cefadroxil and cefixime target opposite ends of the bacterial spectrum and are not interchangeable—cefadroxil is a first-generation cephalosporin effective against gram-positive organisms (streptococci and staphylococci) but has poor gram-negative and beta-lactamase coverage, while cefixime is a third-generation cephalosporin with potent activity against gram-negative bacteria (especially H. influenzae) but limited gram-positive coverage and no activity against staphylococci. 1

Spectrum of Activity: The Critical Distinction

Cefadroxil (First-Generation)

  • Gram-positive coverage: Good activity against Streptococcus pyogenes, penicillin-susceptible S. pneumoniae, and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus 1, 2
  • Gram-negative coverage: Poor activity against Haemophilus influenzae and most Enterobacteriaceae 1
  • Beta-lactamase stability: Easily hydrolyzed by beta-lactamases, making it ineffective against beta-lactamase-producing organisms 1
  • Anaerobic coverage: Minimal to none 1

Cefixime (Third-Generation)

  • Gram-negative coverage: Potent activity against H. influenzae (including beta-lactamase-producing strains), Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and most Enterobacteriaceae 3, 1, 4
  • Gram-positive coverage: Limited activity against penicillin-susceptible S. pneumoniae only; may occasionally fail even against susceptible strains 3, 1
  • No staphylococcal activity: Completely inactive against S. aureus 3, 1, 4
  • No DRSP coverage: No clinically significant activity against drug-resistant S. pneumoniae 3, 1
  • No anaerobic coverage: Inactive against Bacteroides fragilis 1

Clinical Indications: When to Use Each

Choose Cefadroxil For:

  • Skin and soft tissue infections caused by streptococci or methicillin-susceptible staphylococci (community-acquired, non-MRSA) 1
  • Pharyngitis/tonsillitis due to S. pyogenes 1
  • Simple urinary tract infections in areas with low E. coli resistance 1
  • Key requirement: No concern for beta-lactamase-producing organisms and no gram-negative pathogen involvement expected 1

Choose Cefixime For:

  • Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis when H. influenzae is suspected, though limited pneumococcal coverage is a concern 3, 1
  • Uncomplicated urinary tract infections 5
  • Otitis media (though clinical response to S. pneumoniae is approximately 10% lower than comparators) 3, 5
  • Uncomplicated gonorrhea (cervical/urethral) 5, 4
  • Key requirement: H. influenzae confirmed or suspected, but adequate gram-positive coverage is not needed 1

Critical Clinical Pitfalls to Avoid

Never Use Cefadroxil For:

  • Infections involving H. influenzae (respiratory tract infections, otitis media) 1
  • Beta-lactamase-producing organisms 1

Never Use Cefixime For:

  • Empiric community-acquired pneumonia (inadequate S. pneumoniae coverage, especially DRSP) 3, 1
  • Staphylococcal infections (skin/soft tissue, bacteremia) 3, 1
  • Anaerobic infections (Bacteroides fragilis) 1
  • Enterococcal infections 1

Pharmacokinetic Advantages

  • Cefixime: 3-hour elimination half-life permits once- or twice-daily dosing, potentially improving compliance 4, 6
  • Cefadroxil: Slower clearance than cephalexin, allowing less frequent dosing 7

Comparative Efficacy Data

  • In otitis media trials, cefixime 8 mg/kg daily achieved 74-81% bacteriological eradication rates, comparable to cefaclor and amoxicillin 5, 4
  • However, S. pneumoniae response to cefixime was approximately 10% lower than active controls (69-82% vs 82%), while H. influenzae response was 7% higher 5
  • Cefadroxil achieved 94% satisfactory clinical outcomes in skin/skin structure infections, comparable to cephalexin (89%) and cefuroxime axetil (97%) 2

The Bottom Line Algorithm

Never substitute one for the other—they address opposite bacterial spectrums 1:

  1. If gram-positive coverage needed (strep throat, cellulitis, simple skin infections): Use cefadroxil 1
  2. If gram-negative coverage needed (H. influenzae sinusitis, UTI with known gram-negative pathogen): Use cefixime 1
  3. If both gram-positive AND gram-negative coverage needed: Neither drug is appropriate; consider amoxicillin-clavulanate or a respiratory fluoroquinolone 3

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.