Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1984 Apr;25(4):529–531. doi: 10.1128/aac.25.4.529

In vitro comparison of the activity of RU 28965, a new macrolide, with that of erythromycin against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria.

T Barlam, H C Neu
PMCID: PMC185573  PMID: 6732223

Abstract

RU 28965, a novel macrolide antibiotic, inhibited most gram-positive species at concentrations similar to that of erythromycin but was not active, even at alkaline pH, against Pseudomonas spp. or members of the family Enterobacteriaceae. Staphylococci and streptococci resistant to erythromycin were resistant to RU 28965. RU 28965 inhibited Haemophilus influenzae, including a number of beta-lactamase, ampicillin-resistant isolates, and Neisseria meningitidis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae at concentrations similar to those of erythromycin. Against anaerobic species, Bacteroides fragilis and Clostridia and Fusobacterium spp., RU 28965 was less active than erythromycin, but its activity against Campylobacter and Legionella spp. was similar to that of erythromycin.

Full text

PDF
529

Selected References

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

  1. Edelstein P. H., Meyer R. D. Susceptibility of Legionella pneumophila to twenty antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Sep;18(3):403–408. doi: 10.1128/aac.18.3.403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fuchs P. C., Thornsberry C., Barry A. L., Jones R. N., Gavan T. L., Gerlach E. H., Sommers H. M. Rosamicin: in vitro activity comparison with erythromycin and other antibiotics against clinical isolates from the genito-urinary tract and Neisseria meningitidis. J Antibiot (Tokyo) 1979 Sep;32(9):920–927. doi: 10.7164/antibiotics.32.920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gribble M. J., Chow A. W. Erythromycin. Med Clin North Am. 1982 Jan;66(1):79–89. doi: 10.1016/s0025-7125(16)31443-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Jones R. N., Barry A. L., Thornsberry C. In vitro evaluation of three new macrolide antimicrobial agents, RU28965, RU29065, and RU29702, and comparisons with other orally administered drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Aug;24(2):209–215. doi: 10.1128/aac.24.2.209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Neu H. C. In vitro activity of midecamycin, a new macrolide antibiotic. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Sep;24(3):443–444. doi: 10.1128/aac.24.3.443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Pasculle A. W., Dowling J. N., Weyant R. S., Sniffen J. M., Cordes L. G., Gorman G. M., Feeley J. C. Susceptibility of Pittsburgh pneumonia agent (Legionella micdadei) and other newly recognized members of the genus Legionella to nineteen antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981 Dec;20(6):793–799. doi: 10.1128/aac.20.6.793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Westerman E. L., Williams T. W., Jr, Moreland N. In vitro activity of josamycin against aerobic gram-positive cocci and anaerobes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Jun;9(6):988–993. doi: 10.1128/aac.9.6.988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES