Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The sensitivity of gentamicin-resistant gram-negative bacilli to cefotaxime, other cephalosporins and aminoglycosides

Die Empfindlichkeit von Gentamicin resistenten, gramnegativen Bakterien gegenüber Cefotaxim, anderen Cephalosporinen und Aminoglykosiden

  • Published:
Infection Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The sensitivities of 80 gentamicin-resistant gramnegative bacilli to cefotaxime, cefuroxime, cefoxitin, cefamandole, cefazolin, tobramycin, netilmicin and amikacin were determined. Amikacin was the most active aminoglycoside. However, the percentage sensitivity to cefotaxime of most of the species was higher than, or equal to, any of the other antibiotics tested. Cefotaxime was particularly active againstProvidencia spp.,Serratia spp.,Klebsiella spp., andPseudomonas maltophilia, being 16 to 256 times more active than the next best cephalosporin or cephamycin. Clinical trials of cefotaxime are now required.

Zusammenfassung

Die Empfindlichkeit von 80 Gentamicin resistenten, gramnegativen Bakterien gegenüber Cefotaxim, Cefuroxim, Cefoxitin, Cefamandol, Cefazolin, Tobramycin, Netilmicin und Amikacin wurde bestimmt. Amikacin war das wirksamste Aminoglykosid. Jedoch war die prozentuale Empfindlichkeit gegenüber Cefotaxim bei den meisten Stämmen höher oder ebenso groß wie die der anderen untersuchten Antibiotika. Cefotaxim war besonders wirksam gegenProvidencia spp.,Serratia spp.,Klebsiella spp. undPseudomonas maltophilia, dabei war es 16- bis 256mal wirksamer als das nächst beste Cephalosporin oder Cephamycin. Klinische Untersuchungen über Cefotaxim sind jetzt vonnöten.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature

  1. Simmons, H. E., Stolley, P. D. This is medical progress? Trends and consequences of antibiotic use in the United States. J. Am. Med. Ass. 227 (1974) 1023–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Noriega, E. R., Leibowitz, R. E., Richmond, A. S., Rubinstein, E., Schaefler, S., Simberkoff, M. S., Rahal, J. J. Nosocomial infection caused by gentamicin-resistant, streptomycin-sensitive Klebsiella. J. Infect. Dis. 131 Suppl. (1975) S45-S50.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Drasar, F. A., Farrell, W., Maskell, J., Williams, J. D. Tobramycin amikacin, sissomicin, and gentamicin resistant Gram-negative rods. Br. Med. J. 2 (1976) 1284–1287.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Meyer, R. D. Patterns and mechanisms of emergence of resistance to amikacin. J. Infect. Dis. 136 (1977) 449–452.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tally, F. P., Louie, T. J., Weinstein, W. M., Bartlett, J. G., Gorbach, S. L. Amikacin therapy for severe gram-negative sepsis. Ann. Intern. Med. 83 (1975) 484–488.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Speller, D. C. E., Bint, A. J., Stephens, M. Experience with amikacin and colistin in an outbreak of infection by resistantKlebsiella aerogenes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 3 (1977) 483–491.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Black, R. E., Lau, W. K., Weinstein, R. J., Young, L. S., Hewitt, W. L. Ototoxicity of amikacin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 9 (1976) 956–961.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Smith, C. R., Baughman, K. L., Edwards, C. Q., Rogers, J. F., Leitman, P. S. Controlled comparison of amikacin and gentamicin. N. Engl. J. Med. 296 (1977) 349–353.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kosmidis, J., Hamilton-Miller, J. M. T., Gilchrist, K. N. G., Kerry, D. W., Brumfitt, W. Cefoxitin, a new semi-synthetic cephamycin: An in-vitro and in-vivo comparison with cephalothin. Br. Med. J. 4 (1973) 653–655.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Verbist, L. Comparison of the antibacterial activity of nine cephalosporins againstEnterobacteriaceae and non fermentative gram-negative bacilli. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 10 (1976) 657–663.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Heymes, R., Lutz, A., Schrinner, E. Experimental evaluation of HR 756, a new cephalosporin derivative: Pre-clinical study. Infection 5 (1977) 259–260.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hamilton-Miller, J. M. T., Brumfitt, W., Reynolds, A. V. Cefotaxime (HR 756) a new cephalosporin with exceptional broad-spectrum activityin vitro. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 4 (1978) 437–444.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fu, K. P., Neu, H. C. In vitro study of netilmicin compared with other aminoglycosides. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 10 (1976) 526–534.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Reynolds, A. V., Hamilton-Miller, J. M. T., Brumfitt, W. Newer aminoglycosides — Amikacin and tobramycin: An invitro comparison with kanamycin and gentamicin. Br. Med. J. 3 (1974) 778–780.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Daikos, G. K., Kosmidis, J., Giamarellou, H., Dranidis, B., Stathakis, C.: Clinical, bacteriological and pharmacokinetic results with HR 756, a new B-lactamase resistant cephalosporin. 18th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Atlanta 1978, Abstract 299.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology, Bristol Royal Infirmary, BS1 8HW, Bristol, United Kingdom

    M. Stephens, M. Potten &  A. J. Bint

Authors
  1. M. Stephens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Potten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. J. Bint
    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

Stephens, M., Potten, M. & Bint, A.J. The sensitivity of gentamicin-resistant gram-negative bacilli to cefotaxime, other cephalosporins and aminoglycosides. Infection 7, 109–112 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01641308

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01641308

Keywords

Search

Navigation