Antibacterial Activity of Eight Cephalosporins (Cefamandole Included) on Two Common Respiratory Pathogens (Haemophilus Influenzae and Diplococcus Pneumoniae)

  • E. Yourassowsky
  • E. Schoutens
  • M. P. Vanderlinden
Part of the Chemotherapy book series (CT, volume 5)


Two hundred recent clinical isolates of Haemophilus and Pneumococcus were tested in vitro against eight cephalosporins by means of disc diffusion and agar dilution tests.

Cefamandole was the most active cephalosporin against Haemophilus, 97% of the strains being inhibited by 0,78 mcg per ml of this drug. In order of decreasing bacteriostatic effectiveness, the other drugs were classified as follows: cephapirin, cephalothin, cefoxitin, cephaloridine, cefazolin, cephradine and cephalexin. This, study suggest that prediction of the susceptibility of Haemophilus strains to cephalosporins, on the basis of one drug of this group testing alone, is likely to be hazardous.

The most active cephalosporins against D. pneumoniae were cephaloridine, cephapirine, cefazolin, cefamandole and cephalothin which inhibited 90% of the strains at 0,19 mcg per ml. Cefoxitin, cephradine and cephalexin were clearly less active, requiring 3,12mcg per ml to exhibit the same antibacterial activity. Nevertheless, none of the strains were clearly resistant to these drugs.


Minimal Inhibitory Concentration Zone Diameter Neisseria Meningitidis Pneumococcus Strain Disk Agar Diffusion Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bauer A.W., Kirby W.M.M., Sherris J.C. and Turck M.: Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single-disk method. Amer.J.CIin.Pathol. 45: 493–496 (1966).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finland M.: Changing ecology of bacterial infections as related to antibacterial therapy. J.Infect.Dis. 122: 419–431 (1970).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hamilton-Miller J.M.T., Brumfitt W.: Whither the cephalosporins ? J.Infect.Dis. 130: 81–83 (1974).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    May J.R.: The chemotherapy of chronic bronchitis and allied disorders. The English Universities Press Ltd, 1968.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sabath L.D., Stumpf L.L., Wallace S.J. and Finland M.: Susceptibility of Diplococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influen’ae, and Neisseria meningitidis to 23 antibiotics. Antimicr.Ag.Chemother. 1970: 53–56.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schiffer M.S., Mac Lowry J., Schneerson R., Robbins J.B.: Clinical, bacteriological and Immunological characterisation of ampicillin-resistant Haemophilus influenzae type B. Lancet,ii, 257–259 (1974).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams J.D., Andrews J.: Sensitivity of Haemophilus influenzae to antibiotics. Br.Med.J. 1: 134–137 (1974).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yourassowsky E., Schoutens E., Vanderlinden M.P., Prudhomme M.R.: Susceptibi I ity of Haemophilus to antibiotics: present status. Infection 3: 15–18 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Yourassowsky
    • 1
  • E. Schoutens
    • 1
  • M. P. Vanderlinden
    • 1
  1. 1.Service de Biologie CliniqueHôpital Universitaire BrugmannBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations