Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1992 Nov;36(11):2360–2364. doi: 10.1128/aac.36.11.2360

In vitro activity of RU 29246, the active compound of the cephalosporin prodrug ester HR 916.

G Riess 1, J Andrews 1, D Thornber 1, R Wise 1
PMCID: PMC284335  PMID: 1489178

Abstract

The in vitro activity of RU 29246 was compared with those of other agents against 536 recent clinical isolates. The MICs of RU 29246 for 90% of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae tested (MIC90s) were less than 2 micrograms/ml except those for Morganella spp. (16 micrograms/ml) and Proteus spp. (8 micrograms/ml). RU 29246 was active against Staphylococcus aureus (MIC90, < or = 8 micrograms/ml) and against Staphylococcus saprophyticus and coagulase-negative staphylococci (MIC90s, < or = 2 micrograms/ml). Streptococci and Neisseria gonorrhoeae were highly susceptible to RU 29246, and the activity of the agent against isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae (MIC90, < or = 0.5 micrograms/ml), Haemophilus influenzae (MIC90, < or = 2 micrograms/ml), and Moraxella catarrhalis (MIC90, < or = 2 micrograms/ml) was comparable to those of the other cephalosporins tested. RU 29246 was insusceptible to hydrolysis by the common plasmid-mediated beta-lactamases (TEM-1 and SHV-1). However, hydrolysis by the new extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (TEM-3, TEM-5, and TEM-9) was detected. Results of the study suggested that RU 29246 should be investigated clinically for use in the treatment of a wide range of infections.

Full text

PDF
2360

Selected References

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

  1. Ashby J., Kirkpatrick B., Piddock L. J., Wise R. The effect of imipenem on strains of Enterobacteriaceae expressing Richmond & Sykes class I beta-lactamases. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1987 Jul;20(1):15–22. doi: 10.1093/jac/20.1.15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauernfeind A. Comparative antimicrobial spectrum and activity of ceftibuten against clinical isolates from West Germany. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991 Jan-Feb;14(1):63–74. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(91)90091-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bauernfeind A., Jungwirth R. Antibacterial activity of cefpodoxime in comparison with cefixime, cefdinir, cefetamet, ceftibuten, loracarbef, cefprozil, BAY 3522, cefuroxime, cefaclor and cefadroxil. Infection. 1991 Sep-Oct;19(5):353–362. doi: 10.1007/BF01645369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Nichols W. W., Hewinson R. G. Rapid and automated measurement of Km and specific Vmax values of beta-lactamases in bacterial extracts. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1987 Mar;19(3):285–295. doi: 10.1093/jac/19.3.285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. POLLOCK M. R. PURIFICATION AND PROPERTIES OF PENICILLINASES FROM TWO STRAINS OF BACILLUS LICHENIFORMIS: A CHEMICAL, PHYSICOCHEMICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL COMPARISON. Biochem J. 1965 Mar;94:666–675. doi: 10.1042/bj0940666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Pearson R. D., Steigbigel R. T., Davis H. T., Chapman S. W. Method of reliable determination of minimal lethal antibiotic concentrations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Nov;18(5):699–708. doi: 10.1128/aac.18.5.699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES