Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative in-vitro activity of erythromycin, vancomycin and pristinamycin

In vitro-Verhalten von Erythromycin, Vancomycin und Pristinamycin

  • Originalia
  • Published:
Infection Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

We have studied thein-vitro activity of erythromycin, vancomycin and pristinamycin against 1,006 clinical isolates comprising streptococci, staphylococci,Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Haemophilus influenzae and anaerobes.In-vitro studies show pristinamycin to inhibit staphylococci and streptococci, including erythromycin highly-resistant organisms, at a concentration of ≤ 0.78 mg/l. Although pristinamycin's mean MIC for streptococci is higher than that of erythromycin, pristinamycin is bactericidal, whereas erythromycin is bacteristatic againstStreptococcus agalactiae and oral streptococci. Enterococci were less uniformly susceptible to pristinamycin: 58 of the 94Enterococcus faecalis tested were resistant (MIC ≥ 3.12 mg/l). 14 of the 15 isolates ofEnterococcus faecium were inhibited by ≤ 1.56 mg/l pristinamycin. Pristinamycin showed poor activity againstHaemophilus influenzae (mode MIC 1.56 and MIC90 of 3.12 mg/l) but all except two of the 100Neisseria gonorrhoeae tested were inhibited by ≤ 0.78 mg/l pristinamycin. Pristinamycin inhibited all nineClostridium spp. at ≤ 0.39 mg/l and 38 of 40 strains of anaerobic gram-positive cocci at ≤ 0.78 mg/l. It was less effective against theBacteroides fragilis group: (MIC90 3.12 mg/l). Pristinamycin had poor bactericidal activity against the anaerobes tested.

Zusammenfassung

Wir haben das In vitro-Verhalten von Erythromycin, Vancomycin und Pristinamycin gegenüber 1006 klinischen Isolaten, zusammengesetzt aus Streptokokken, Staphylokokken,Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Haemophilus influenzae und Anaerobiern untersucht. Die In vitro-Untersuchungen zeigen, daß Pristinamycin Staphlokokken und Streptokokken bei einer Konzentration von ≤ 0,78 mg/l hemmt, einschließlich der gegen Erythromycin hoch resistenten Stämme. Obwohl die mittlere MHK von Pristinamycin für Streptokokken höher ist als die des Erythromycin, ist Pristinamycin bakterizid. Dagegen wirkt Erythromycin aufStreptococcus agalactiae und orale Streptokokken bakteriostatisch. Enterokokken reagierten weniger gleichbleibend auf Pristinamycin. 58 der 94 getestetenEnterococcus faecalis-Isolate waren resistent (MHK ≥ 3,12 mg/l). 14 von 15Enterococcus faecium-Isolaten wurden durch ≤ 1,56 mg/l Pristinamycin gehemmt. Pristinamycin zeigte eine geringe Aktivität gegenüberHaemophilus influenzae (Mittlere MHK 1,56 mg/l und MHK90 3,12 mg/l). Alle bis auf zwei der getesteten 100Neisseria gonorrhoeae-Isolate wurden durch ≤ 0,78 mg/l Pristinamycin gehemmt. Pristinamycin hemmte alle neunClostridium spp. bei ≤ 0,39 mg/l und 38 von 40 Stämmen anaerober grampositiver Kokken bei ≤ 0,78 mg/l. Pristinamycin war weniger erfolgreich gegen dieBacteroides fragilis-Gruppe: (MHK90 3,12 mg/l). Pristinamycin zeigte nur wenig Aktivität gegenüber den Anaerobiern.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shanson, D. C.;Akash, S., Harris, M., Tadayon, M. Erythromycin stearate 1.5 g for the oral prophylaxis of streptococcal bacteraemia in patients undergoing dental extraction: efficacy and tolerance. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 15 (1985a) 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Garelts, J. C., Peterie, J. D. Vancomycin and the red man's syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 312 (1981) 245.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cook, F. U., Farrar, W. E., Jr. Vancomycin revisited. Ann. Intern. Med. 88 (1978) 813–818.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sorrell, T. C., Collignon, J. C. A prospective study of adverse reactions associated with vancomycin therapy. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 6 (1985) 235–241.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Prud'homme, J., Torridie, P., Belloc, A. Pristinamycin characterisation and identification of its constitutents. Bull. Soc. Chim. Fr. 2 (1958) 5895–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Le Goffic Structure activity in lincosamide and streptogramin antibiotics. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 16 Suppl. A (1985) 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berteaux, S., Bouanchaud, D. H.: Lasting effects of P2 components of pristinamycin onStaphylococcus aureus. Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Chemotherapy 1981, pp. 90–92.

  8. Maskell, J. P., Williams, J. D. In-vitro susceptibility of oral streptococci to pristinamycin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 19 (1987) 585–590.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lafaix, Ch., Bouvet, E., Dublanchet, A., Dabernat, H., Carrere Cl., Picq, J. J., Etienne, J. Thein vitro activity of pristinamycin againstHaemophilus influenzae undNeisseria meningitidis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 16 Supp. A (1985) 221–223.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Thabaut, A., Meyran, M., Huerre, M. In vitro comparison of macrolides, lincosamides and synergistins onNeisseria gonorrhoeae. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 16 Suppl. A (1985) 213–215.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Miles, A. A., Misra, S. S., Irwin, J. O. The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. J. Hyg., Cambridge, 38 (1938) 732–49.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Vazquez, D. The streptogramin family of antibiotics. In:Gottlieb, D., Shaw, P. D. (eds.).: Antibiotics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1967, pp. 387–403.

    Google Scholar 

  13. American Heart Association Committee Report: Prevention of bacterial endocarditis. Circulation 56 (1977) 139A-143A.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Duval, J. Evolution and epidemiology of MLS resistance. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 16 Suppl. A (1985) 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Weisblum, B., Demohn, V. Erythromycin-inducible resistance inStaphylococcus aureus. Survey of antibiotic classes involved. J. Bacteriol. 98 (1969) 447–452.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Moellering, R. C., Jr., Korzeniowski, O. M., Sande, M. A., Wennersten, C. B. Species specific resistance to antimicrobial synergism inStreptococcus faecium andStreptococcus faecalis. J. Infect. Dis. 140 (1979) 203–208.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chen, H. Y., Williams, J. D. The killing effects of cefathiamidine or ampicillin alone and in combination with gentamicin against enterococci. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 12 (1983) 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Krogstad, D. J., Parquette, A. R. Defective killing of enterococci: a common property of antimicrobial agents acting on the cell wall. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 17 (1980) 965–968.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Watanakunakorn, C., Bakie, C. Synergism of vancomycin-gentamicin and vancomycin-streptomycin against enterococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 4 (1973) 120–124.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chen, H. Y., Williams, J. D. The activity of vancomycin and teicoplanin alone and in combination with gentamicin or ampicillin againstStreptococcus faecalis. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. 3 (1984) 436–438.

    Google Scholar 

  21. McDonald, M. I., Hurse, A., Sim, K. W. Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Med. J. Aust. 2 (1981) 191–195.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Boyce, J. M., Causey, W. A. Increasing occurrence of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus in the United States. Infect. Control 3 (1982) 377–383.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shanson, D. C., Johnstone, D., Midgley, J. Control of a hospital outbreak of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus infections: value of an isolation unit. J. Hosp. Infect. 6 (1985b) 285–292.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kucers, A. Vancomycin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 14 (1984) 564–567.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Thabaut, A., Meyran, M., Huerre, M. Evolution and present situation ofStaphylococcus aureus sensitivity to MLS in hospital (1975–83). J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 16 Suppl. A (1985) 205–207.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Beauvais, P., Filipe, G., Berniere, J., Carlioz, H. Oral pristinamycin for bone and joint infections in children. A report of 50 cases. Arch. Fr. Pediatr. 38 (1981) 489–493.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bastin, R., Rapin, M., Kernbaum, S. Controlled study of pristinamycin versus oxacillin in staphylococcal infections. Pathol. Biol. (Paris), 30, 6 Part 2 (1982) 473–475.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Microbiology, The London Hospital Medical College, Turner Street, E1 2AD, GB-London

    J. P. Maskell F.I.M.L.S.,  A. M. Sefton M.Sc. (M.R.C.P.) &  J. D. Williams M.D.F.R.C. Path.

  2. Solah Medical Centre, Kota Kinabalu, E. Malaysia

    J. Yong M. Sc.

  3. The Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Beijing Medical University, People's Republic of China

    S. J. Chi

Authors
  1. J. P. Maskell F.I.M.L.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. M. Sefton M.Sc.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. D. Williams M.D.F.R.C. Path.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Yong M. Sc.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. J. Chi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maskell, J.P., Sefton, A.M., Williams, J.D. et al. Comparative in-vitro activity of erythromycin, vancomycin and pristinamycin. Infection 16, 365–370 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01644551

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01644551

Keywords

Search

Navigation