Abstract
A total of 509 clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae were tested for susceptibility to cefamandole by Autobac 1 and Bauer-Kirby disk diffusion methods, using commercially available 30-micrograms cefamandole disks. Minimal inhibitory concentrations were determined for all organisms showing major or very major discrepancies. Overall agreement between Autobac 1 and disk diffusion was 89.8%, with 5.1% major or very major and 5.1% minor discrepancies. When considering only the genera for which 20 or more isolates were tested, overall agreement was 90.8%. Discrepancies for Escherichia coli showed a trend toward resistance by Autobac 1, with minimal inhibitory concentrations generally in agreement with disk diffusion results. No trends were detected for other genera. The rate of agreement was lower for Enterobacter species (75.4%), but minimal inhibitory concentrations, determined for all discrepancies in this genus, agreed with Autobafc 1 as often a with disk diffusion results.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Adams H. G., Stilwell G. A., Turck M. In vitro evaluation of cefoxitin and cefamandole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Jun;9(6):1019–1024. doi: 10.1128/aac.9.6.1019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Barry A. L., Schoenknect F. D., Shadomy S., Sherris J. C., Thornsberry C., Washington J. A., Kammer R. B. In-vitro activities of cefamandole and cephalothin against 1,881 clinical isolates. A multi-center study. Am J Clin Pathol. 1979 Nov;72(5):858–860. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/72.5.858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Barry A. L., Thornsberry C., Jones R. N., Fuchs P. C., Gavan T. L., Gerlach E. H. Cefuroxime, an in vitro Comparison with Six Other Cephalosporins. Proc R Soc Med. 1977;70(Suppl 9):63–71. doi: 10.1177/00359157770700S912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Bodey G. P., Weaver S. In vitro studies of cefamandole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Mar;9(3):452–457. doi: 10.1128/aac.9.3.452. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Findell C. M., Sherris J. C. Susceptibility of Enterobacter to cefamandole: evidence for a high mutation rate to resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Jun;9(6):970–974. doi: 10.1128/aac.9.6.970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jones R. N., Fuchs P. C. Comparison of in vitro antimicrobial activity of cefamandole and cefazolin with cephalothin against over 8,000 clinical bacterial isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Jun;9(6):1066–1069. doi: 10.1128/aac.9.6.1066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meyers B. R., Ribner B., Yancovitz S., Hirschman S. Z. Pharmacological studies with cefamandole in human volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Jan;9(1):140–144. doi: 10.1128/aac.9.1.140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Neu H. C. Cefamandole, a cephalosporin antibiotic with an unusually wide spectrum of activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1974 Aug;6(2):177–182. doi: 10.1128/aac.6.2.177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ngel J. G., Kunz L. J. Simplified storage and retrieval of stock cultures. Appl Microbiol. 1972 Apr;23(4):837–838. doi: 10.1128/am.23.4.837-838.1972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thornsberry C., Gavan T. L., Sherris J. C., Balows A., Matsen J. M., Sabath L. D., Schoenknecht F., Thrupp L. D., Washington J. A., 2nd Laboratory evaluation of a rapid, automatic susceptibility testing system: report of a collaborative study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1975 Apr;7(4):466–480. doi: 10.1128/aac.7.4.466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]