This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shafran, S D
Right arrow Articles by Chow, A W
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shafran, S D
Right arrow Articles by Chow, A W

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 May; 27(5): 749-752

In vitro activity of Sch 34343 and cefbuperazone against anaerobic bacteria.

S D Shafran, J Wong and A W Chow

ABSTRACT

The in vitro activities of Sch 34343, a new penem antibiotic, and cefbuperazone, a new cephamycin antibiotic, were determined against 459 clinical anaerobic bacterial isolates and compared with the activities of imipenem and cefoxitin, respectively, by an agar dilution method. Both penems showed potent and similar activity against all anaerobic bacteria tested, particularly Peptococcus spp., Bacteroides fragilis, and Clostridium perfringens. All organisms except a single strain of Fusobacterium necrogenes were inhibited by an 8 micrograms/ml concentration of either Sch 34343 or imipenem. Overall, gram-positive bacilli, particularly Lactobacillus species, Clostridium difficile, and Bifidobacterium and Actinomyces species, were relatively more resistant to either penem than other genera of anaerobic bacteria tested. Cefbuperazone demonstrated only modest activity against a wide spectrum of anaerobic bacteria. It had excellent and selective activity against B. fragilis and Bacteroides vulgatus but was highly inactive against Bacteroides distasonis and Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron within the B. fragilis group. Both cephamycins showed virtually no activity against C. difficile and Lactobacillus spp. Although cefbuperazone was more active against Bifidobacterium spp., it had less activity against Fusobacterium spp., Eubacterium spp., and all Bacteroides spp. other than B. fragilis and B. vulgatus.

Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 May; 27(5): 749-752






Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»