AAC
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Citron, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, E. J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Citron, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, E. J. C.
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, July 2003, p. 2334-2338, Vol. 47, No. 7
0066-4804/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AAC.47.7.2334-2338.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

In Vitro Activities of Ramoplanin, Teicoplanin, Vancomycin, Linezolid, Bacitracin, and Four Other Antimicrobials against Intestinal Anaerobic Bacteria

D. M. Citron,* C. V. Merriam, K. L. Tyrrell, Y. A. Warren, H. Fernandez, and E. J. C. Goldstein

R.M. Alden Research Laboratory, Santa Monica, California

Received 6 December 2002/ Returned for modification 30 January 2003/ Accepted 1 April 2003

By using an agar dilution method, the in vitro activities of ramoplanin, teicoplanin, vancomycin, linezolid, and five other agents were determined against 300 gram-positive and 54 gram-negative strains of intestinal anaerobes. Ramoplanin was active at ≤2 µg/ml against 287 of 300 (95.7%) gram-positive organisms, including 18 strains of Clostridium difficile for which MICs of ramoplanin were 0.25 to 0.5 µg/ml; for 3 of these, linezolid MICs were 8 to 16 µg/ml. Nineteen Clostridium innocuum strains for which the vancomycin MIC at which 90% of strains were inhibited was 16 µg/ml were susceptible to ramoplanin at 0.06 to 0.25 µg/ml and to teicoplanin at 0.125 to 1.0 µg/ml. All strains of Eubacterium, Actinomyces, Propionibacterium, and Peptostreptococcus spp. were inhibited by ≤0.25 µg of ramoplanin per ml and ≤1 µg of vancomycin per ml. Ramoplanin was also active at ≤4 µg/ml against 15 of 22 of the Prevotella and Porphyromonas strains tested, but ramoplanin MICs for all 31 strains of the Bacteroides fragilis group, the Fusobacterium mortiferum-Fusobacterium varium group, and Veillonella spp. were ≥256 µg/ml. Ramoplanin displays excellent activity against C. difficile and other gram-positive enteric anaerobes, including vancomycin-resistant strains; however, it has poor activity against most gram-negative anaerobes and thus potentially has a lesser effect on the ecological balance of normal fecal flora.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Alden Research Laboratory; 2001 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 685W, Santa Monica, CA 90404. Phone: (310) 453-7820. Fax: (310) 453-7670. E-mail: d.m.citron{at}verizon.net.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, July 2003, p. 2334-2338, Vol. 47, No. 7
0066-4804/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AAC.47.7.2334-2338.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
J. Clin. Microbiol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.