In Vitro Sensitivity of Helicobacter pylori

  • C. A. M. McNulty
Conference paper


Initial results indicate that long-term eradication of this Helicobacter pylori will be difficult. The first step in the search for a suitable antimicrobial to treat any infection is to determine the in vitro susceptibility of the causative organism to suitable therapeutic agents. The activity of a range of antimicrobial agents against H. pylori was first determined at neutral pH (Table 1) [1, 2]. H. pylori is highly sensitive to most of the β- lactams except cefsulodin. Penicillin, ampicillin, cefuroxime, cefoxitin and cephalexin have minimum inhibitory concentrations for 90% of organisms (MIC 90s) of less than 0.5 mg/litre; flucloxacillin and aztreonam are moderately active with MIC 90s of 2 mg/litre. The macrolides and quinolones except amifloxacin (MIC 90, 4 mg/litre) also have good activity with MIC 90s of less than 0.5 mg/litre. Other agents that have good in vitro activity include nitrofurantoin (MIC 90,0.5 mg/litre), gentamicin (MIC 90,0.25 mg/litre), tetracycline (MIC 90,0.25 mg/litre) and rifampicin (MIC 90,1 mg/ litre). Metronidazole has moderate activity but about 25% of strains are less sensitive [3]. H. pylori is resistant to vancomycin, cefsulodin, trimethoprim and the sulphona- mides.


Gastric Mucus Subinhibitory Concentration Antral Gastritis Bismuth Subcitrate Bismuth Salt 
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.
    Goodwin CS, Blake P, Blineow E (1986) The minimum inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations of antibiotics and anti-ulcer agents against Campylobacter pyloridis. J Antimicrob Chemother 17:309–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McNulty CAM, Dent JC (1988) Susceptibility of Campylobacter pylori to twenty-one antimicrobial agents. Eur J Clin Microbiol 7:566–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McNulty CAM, Dent JC, Wise R (1985) Susceptibility of clinical isolates of Campylobacter pyloridis to 11 antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 28:837–838PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilman R, Leon-Barua R, Ramirez-Ramos A et al. (1986) Efficacy of nitrofurantoin in the treatment of antral gastritis associated with Campylobacter pyloridis. Gastroenterology 92:1405Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rauws EAJ, Langenberg W, Houthoff HJ, Zanen HC, Tytgat GNJ (1988) Campylobacter pyloridis-associated chronic active antral gastritis. A prospective study of its prevalence and the effects of antibacterial and antiulcer treatment. Gastroenterology 94:33–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McNulty CAM, Gearty JC, Crump B, Davis M, Donovan IA, Melikian V et al. (1986) Campylobacter pyloridis and associated gastritis: investigator blind, placebo controlled trial of bismuth salicylate and erythromycin ethylsuccinate. Br J Med 293:645–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lamouliatte H, Megraud F, De Mascarel A et al. (1987) Placebo-controlled trial of josamycin in Campylobacter pyloridis associated gastritis. In: Kaijser B, Falsen E (eds) Campylobacter IV. Goterna, Goteborg, Sweden, pp:388–389Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glupczynski Y, Labbe M, Burette A et al. (1987) Treatment failure of ofloxacin in Campylobacter pylori infection. Lancet I:1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hirschl AM, Stanek G, Rotter ML et al. (1988) Campylobacter pyloridis: frequency of occurrence, serology and susceptibility to antibiotics and ulcer-drugs. In: Kaijser B, Falsen E (eds) Campylobacter IV. Goterna, Goteborg, Sweden, pp:363–364Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stone JW, Wise R, Donovan IA et al. (1988) Failure of ciprofloxacin to eradicate Campylobacter pylori from the stomach. J Antimicrob Chemother 22:92–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McNulty CAM (1989) Bacteriological and pharmacological basis for the treatment of Campylobacter pylori infection. In: Rathbone BJ, Heatley RV (eds) Campylobacter pylori and gastroduodenal disease. Blackwell, Oxford, pp:209–216Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McNulty CAM, Dent JC, Ford GA et al. (1989) Inhibitory antimicrobial concentrations against Campylobacter pylori in gastric mucosa. J Antimicrob Chemother 22:729–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quigley EMM, Turnberg LA (1987) pH of the microclimate lining human gastric and duodenal mucosa in vivo. Gastroenterology 92:1876–1884PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hazell SL, Lee A (1985) The adaption of motile strains of Campylobacter pyloridis in gastric mucus and their association with gastric epithelial intercellular spaces abstract. Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Campylobacter infections Ottawa, July 1985, Abstract No. 115:189–191Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allen A (1981) Structure and function of gastrointestinal mucus. In: Johnson LR (ed) Physiology of the gastrointestinal tract. Raven, New York.:617–639Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fleming LW, Moreland TA, Stewart WK et al. (1986) Ciprofloxacin and antacids. Lancet II:294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Unge P, Gad A, Gnarpe H, Olsson J (1989) Does omeprazole improve antimicrobial therapy directed towards gastric Campylobacter pylori in patients with enteral gastritis. Proceedings of the Vth international workshop on Campylobacter infections. Mexico, Fuerta Vallarta, Febr 1989Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glupczynski Y, Burette A, Labbe M et al. (1988) Campylobacter pylori-associated gastritis: a double blind placebo-controlled trial with amoxycillin. Am J Gastroenterol 83:265–372Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. A. M. McNulty

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations