Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1983 Aug;24(2):156–162. doi: 10.1128/aac.24.2.156

Statistical comparison of the antibacterial activities of broad-spectrum penicillins against gram-negative bacilli.

R J Fass
PMCID: PMC185130  PMID: 6638985

Abstract

Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) or two alpha-carboxypenicillins (carbenicillin and ticarcillin) and three acylaminopenicillins (azlocillin, mezlocillin, and piperacillin) for 300 aerobic and facultative gram-negative bacilli were determined by a microdilution method and compared by parametric statistical tests. Within each group of penicillins, MICs were highly interrelated; MICs of one antibiotic were readily predictable based on knowledge of MICs of another antibiotic. Ticarcillin was consistently more active than carbenicillin by approximately one dilution step, but the relative activities of the acylaminopenicillins varied by bacterial species. The acylaminopenicillins were generally more active than the alpha-carboxypenicillins, particularly against alpha-carboxypenicillin-resistant organisms. There were exceptions, however, and antibiotic MICs in one group were not readily predictable on the basis of the knowledge of antibiotic MICs in the other group. The enhanced antibacterial potencies and spectra of the acylaminopenicillins against gram-negative bacilli make these antibiotics potentially useful therapeutic agents. It is not necessary for clinical laboratories to routinely perform susceptibility tests with all five antibiotics.

Full text

PDF
156

Selected References

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

  1. Basker M. J., Edmondson R. A., Sutherland R. Comparative antibacterial activity of azlocillin, mezlocillin, carbenicillin and ticarcillin and relative stability to beta-lactamases of pseudomonas aeruginosa and klebsiella aerogenes. Infection. 1979;7(2):67–73. doi: 10.1007/BF01641616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bodey G. P., Le Blanc B. Piperacillin: in vitro evaluation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Jul;14(1):78–87. doi: 10.1128/aac.14.1.78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Copelan E. A., Kusumi R. K., Miller L., Fass R. J. A comparison of the effects of mezlocillin and carbenicillin on haemostasis in volunteers. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 May;11 (Suppl 100):43–49. doi: 10.1093/jac/11.suppl_c.43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Curtis N. A., Orr D., Ross G. W., Boulton M. G. Affinities of penicillins and cephalosporins for the penicillin-binding proteins of Escherichia coli K-12 and their antibacterial activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1979 Nov;16(5):533–539. doi: 10.1128/aac.16.5.533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fass R. J., Barnishan J. In vitro susceptibilities of Aeromonas hydrophila to 32 antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981 Feb;19(2):357–358. doi: 10.1128/aac.19.2.357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fass R. J., Barnishan J. In vitro susceptibilities of nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli other than Pseudomonas aeruginosa to 32 antimicrobial agents. Rev Infect Dis. 1980 Nov-Dec;2(6):841–853. doi: 10.1093/clinids/2.6.841. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fass R. J. In vitro activities of beta-lactam and aminoglycoside antibiotics. A comparative study of 20 parenterally administered drugs. Arch Intern Med. 1980 Jun;140(6):763–768. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fu K. P., Neu H. C. Piperacillin, a new penicillin active against many bacteria resistant to other penicillins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Mar;13(3):358–367. doi: 10.1128/aac.13.3.358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gentry L. O., Jemsek J. G., Natelson E. A. Effects of sodium piperacillin on platelet function in normal volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981 Apr;19(4):532–533. doi: 10.1128/aac.19.4.532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Monif G. R., Clark P. R., Shuster J. J., Baer H. Susceptibility of the anaerobic bacteria, group D streptococci, Enterobacteriaceae, and Pseudomonas to semisynthetic penicillins: carbenicillin, piperacillin, and ticarcillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Nov;14(5):643–649. doi: 10.1128/aac.14.5.643. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Prior R. B., Fass R. J. Comparison of ticarcillin and carbenicillin activity against random and select populations Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Feb;13(2):184–187. doi: 10.1128/aac.13.2.184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sanders C. C. Comparative activity of mezlocillin, penicillin, ampicillin, carbenicillin, and ticarcillin against gram-positive bacteria and Haemophilus influenzae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981 Dec;20(6):843–846. doi: 10.1128/aac.20.6.843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Somani P., Smith M. R., Gohara A., Kapila K. The effects of mezlocillin, ticarcillin and placebo on blood coagulation and bleeding time in normal volunteers. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1983 May;11 (Suppl 100):33–41. doi: 10.1093/jac/11.suppl_c.33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Thadepalli H., Roy I., Bach V. T., Webb D. In vitro activity of mezlocillin and its related compounds against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1979 Mar;15(3):487–490. doi: 10.1128/aac.15.3.487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Verbist L. Comparison of the activities of the new ureidopenicillins piperacillin, mezlocillin, azlocillin, and Bay k 4999 against gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1979 Aug;16(2):115–119. doi: 10.1128/aac.16.2.115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Verbist L. In vitro activity of piperacillin, a new semisynthetic penicillin with an unusually broad spectrum of activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Mar;13(3):349–357. doi: 10.1128/aac.13.3.349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. White A. R., Comber K. R., Sutherland R. Comparative bactericidal effects of azlocillin and ticarcillin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Jul;18(1):182–189. doi: 10.1128/aac.18.1.182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Winston D. J., Wang D., Young L. S., Martin W. J., Hewitt W. L. In vitro studies of piperacilin, a new semisynthetic penicillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Jun;13(6):944–950. doi: 10.1128/aac.13.6.944. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Wise R., Gillett A. P., Andrews J. M., Bedford K. A. Activity of azlocillin and mezlocillin against gram-negative organisms: comparison with other penicillins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Apr;13(4):559–565. doi: 10.1128/aac.13.4.559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Zimmermann W. Penetration of beta-lactam antibiotics into their target enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: comparison of a highly sensitive mutant with its parent strain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Jul;18(1):94–100. doi: 10.1128/aac.18.1.94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES