Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1985 Apr;27(4):449–451. doi: 10.1128/aac.27.4.449

Effects of changes in pH, medium, and inoculum size on the in vitro activity of amifloxacin against urinary isolates of Staphylococcus saprophyticus and Escherichia coli.

A Iravani, G S Welty, B R Newton, G A Richard
PMCID: PMC180072  PMID: 3890724

Abstract

The in vitro activity of amifloxacin (WIN 49375), a new fluoroquinolone, was compared with the activities of antimicrobial agents that are commonly used for the treatment of urinary tract infection (cinoxacin, cephalexin, gentamicin, amoxicillin, trimethoprim, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) against 25 strains of Staphylococcus saprophyticus and 28 strains of Escherichia coli. Bacterial strains were isolated from urine specimens of college women with acute urinary tract infections. Bacterial isolates were more susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, trimethoprim, and amifloxacin than to the other drugs tested. The in vitro activity of amifloxacin against S. saprophyticus had an inverse relation to increases in the pH of the test medium. Changes in the type of culture medium had no effect on the in vitro activity of amifloxacin. There was a direct relationship between increases in inoculum size and the MICs of amifloxacin.

Full text

PDF
449

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bauer A. W., Kirby W. M., Sherris J. C., Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol. 1966 Apr;45(4):493–496. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bushby S. R. Sensitivity testing with trimethorpim-sulphamethoxazole. Med J Aust. 1973 Jun 30;1(2 Suppl):10–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ericsson H. M., Sherris J. C. Antibiotic sensitivity testing. Report of an international collaborative study. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand B Microbiol Immunol. 1971;217(Suppl):1+–1+. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gillespie W. A., Sellin M. A., Gill P., Stephens M., Tuckwell L. A., Hilton A. L. Urinary tract infection in young women, with special reference to Staphylococcus saprophyticus. J Clin Pathol. 1978 Apr;31(4):348–350. doi: 10.1136/jcp.31.4.348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Iravani A., Richard G. A., Baer H., Fennell R. Comparative efficacy and safety of nalidixic acid versus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole in treatment of acute urinary tract infections in college-age women. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981 Apr;19(4):598–604. doi: 10.1128/aac.19.4.598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jordan P. A., Iravani A., Richard G. A., Baer H. Urinary tract infection caused by Staphylococcus saprophyticus. J Infect Dis. 1980 Oct;142(4):510–515. doi: 10.1093/infdis/142.4.510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Murray P. R., Jorgensen J. H. Quantitative susceptibility test methods in major United States medical centers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981 Jul;20(1):66–70. doi: 10.1128/aac.20.1.66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Smith P. B., Tomfohrde K. M., Rhoden D. L., Balows A. API system: a multitube micromethod for identification of Enterobacteriaceae. Appl Microbiol. 1972 Sep;24(3):449–452. doi: 10.1128/am.24.3.449-452.1972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES