Skip to main content
PMC home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1984 Feb;25(2):162–164. doi: 10.1128/aac.25.2.162

Comparative in vitro activities of cefpiramide and apalcillin against anaerobic bacteria.

H Wexler, W T Carter, B Harris, S M Finegold
PMCID: PMC185465  PMID: 6712200

Abstract

The in vitro activities of two new antimicrobial agents, apalcillin and cefpiramide (SM-1652), were evaluated against 324 strains of anaerobic bacteria. Apalcillin (a penicillin derivative) and cefpiramide (a semisynthetic cephalosporin) were compared with piperacillin, moxalactam, and cefoxitin. Organisms studied included the Bacteroides fragilis group, other Bacteroides species, fusobacteria, clostridia, nonsporeforming gram-positive rods, and anaerobic cocci. Piperacillin was found to be the most active overall, inhibiting 96% of the strains tested at its achievable level in serum (128 micrograms/ml). Apalcillin was comparable in activity to piperacillin, inhibiting 93% of anaerobes tested at this concentration. The other antibiotics inhibited ca. 80% of the strains at 32 micrograms/ml. In terms of activities against particular species, apalcillin was active against 75% of B. fragilis group strains and 97 to 100% of all other anaerobes. Cefpiramide inhibited 37% of B. fragilis group strains at 32 micrograms/ml and 68% at 64 micrograms/ml (a level that may be achievable with this drug). Cefpiramide inhibited 92% of all other anaerobes at 32 micrograms/ml and 95% at 64 micrograms/ml. The clostridia other than Clostridium perfringens were the most resistant (84% inhibited at 32 micrograms/ml and 95% inhibited at 64 micrograms/ml).

Full text

PDF
162

Selected References

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

  1. Borobio M. V., Aznar J., Jimenez R., Garcia F., Perea E. J. Comparative in vitro activity of 1-oxa-beta-lactam (LY127935) and cefoperazone with other beta-lactam antibiotics against anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Feb;17(2):129–131. doi: 10.1128/aac.17.2.129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Finegold S. M. Antimicrobial therapy of anaerobic infections: a status report. Hosp Pract. 1979 Oct;14(10):71–81. doi: 10.1080/21548331.1979.11707627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fukasawa M., Noguchi H., Okuda T., Komatsu T., Yano K. In vitro antibacterial activity of SM-1652, a new broad-spectrum cephalosporin with antipseudomonal activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Feb;23(2):195–200. doi: 10.1128/aac.23.2.195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Jones R. N., Fuchs P. C., Sommers H. M., Gavan T. L., Barry A. L., Gerlach E. H. Moxalactam (LY127935), a new semisynthetic 1-oxa-beta-lactam antibiotic with remarkable antimicrobial activity: in vitro comparison with cefamandole and tobramycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Apr;17(4):750–756. doi: 10.1128/aac.17.4.750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kato M., Inoue M., Mitsuhashi S. Antibacterial activities of SM-1652 compared with those of other broad-spectrum cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Nov;22(5):721–727. doi: 10.1128/aac.22.5.721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kaye D., Kobasa W., Kaye K. Susceptibilities of anaerobic bacteria to cefoperazone and other antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Jun;17(6):957–960. doi: 10.1128/aac.17.6.957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kesado T., Watanabe K., Asahi Y., Isono M., Ueno K. Susceptibilities of anaerobic bacteria to N-formimidoyl thienamycin (MK0787) and to other antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Jun;21(6):1016–1022. doi: 10.1128/aac.21.6.1016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kirby B. D., George W. L., Sutter V. L., Citron D. M., Finegold S. M. Gram-negative anaerobic bacilli: their role in infection and patterns of susceptibility to antimicrobial agents. I. Little-known Bacteroides species. Rev Infect Dis. 1980 Nov-Dec;2(6):914–951. doi: 10.1093/clinids/2.6.914. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. McAllister T. A. Piperacillin against clinical isolates: antimicrobial profile and clinical role. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1982 Feb;9 (Suppl B):75–84. doi: 10.1093/jac/9.suppl_b.75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Neu H. C., Labthavikul P. In vitro activity of apalcillin compared with that of other new penicillins and anti-Pseudomonas cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Jun;21(6):906–911. doi: 10.1128/aac.21.6.906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ryan R. W., Kwasnik I., Tilton R. C. The activity of five cephalosporins against Bacteroides fragilis. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 1982 Jan-Feb;12(1):32–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sutter V. L., Finegold S. M. Antibiotic disc susceptibility tests for rapid presumptive identification of Gram-negative anaerobic bacilli. Appl Microbiol. 1971 Jan;21(1):13–20. doi: 10.1128/am.21.1.13-20.1971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Sutter V. L., Finegold S. M. Susceptibility of Anaerobic bacteria to carbenicillin, cefoxitin, and related drugs. J Infect Dis. 1975 Apr;131(4):417–422. doi: 10.1093/infdis/131.4.417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Tally F. P., Jacobus N. V., Bartlett J. G., Gorbach S. L. Susceptibility of anaerobes to cefoxitin and other cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1975 Feb;7(2):128–132. doi: 10.1128/aac.7.2.128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES