Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In vitro activity of cefaclor against haemophilus influenzae in comparison to cephalexin, cephradine, cefadroxil, cefatrizine and ampicillin

In-vitro-Aktivität von Cefaclor gegenüber Haemophilus influenzae; Vergleich von Cephalexin Cephradin, Cefadroxil, Cefatrizin und Ampicillin

  • Published:
Infection Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) of cefaclor were compared with those of cephalexin, cephradine, cefadroxil, cefatrizine, and ampicillin for 50 strains ofHaemophilus influenzae. The activity of cefaclor and cefatrizine was 8–16 times higher than that of the other cephalosporins and 1/8 that of ampicillin. Cross-resistance between ampicillin and the cephalosporins tested was observed for one strain which did not produce beta-lactamase. No cross-resistance was found for beta-lactamase-producing strains. The killing kinetics of 4 mg/l cefaclor did not differ in two ampicillin-sensitive strains and one beta-lactamase-producing strain which was slightly resistant to ampicillin. The survival rate varied from 10% to 1% after six to seven hours.

Zusammenfassung

Für 50 Stämme vonHaemophilus influenzae wurden die minimale Hemmkonzentration (MHK) und minimale bakterizide Konzentration (MBK) von Cefaclor mit der von Cephalexin, Cephradin, Cefadroxil, Cefatrizin und Ampicillin verglichen. Die Aktivität von Cefaclor und Cefatrizin war 8–16 mal stärker als die der anderen Cephalosporine und betrug 1/8 der des Ampicillins. Parallelresistenz zwischen Ampicillin und den Cephalosporinen wurde bei Beta-Laktamase-bildenden Stämmen nicht beobachtet, jedoch bei einem Stamm, der keine Beta-Laktamase produzierte. Die Absterbekinetik mit 4 mg/l Cefaclor zeigte keine Unterschiede zwischen zwei ampicillinempfindlichen Stämmen und einem Beta-Laktamase-bildenden, schwach ampicillin-resistenten Stamm. Die überlebensraten nach 6–7 Std. betrugen zwischen 10 und 1 Prozent.

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. Bartmann, K., Brandt, H. J. Mikrobiologische Probleme beim chronischen bronchitischen Syndrom. Tuberk. Arzt 16 (1962) 69–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Eicke, R., Genz, U., Bartmann, K., Koch, G. Die Wirksamkeit einer Tagesdosis von 100 mg Doxycyclin (Vibramycin®) bei bakteriellem Infekt der chronischen Bronchitis. Med. Klin. 73 (1978) 1778–1779.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lilly Research Laboratories. Cefaclor Manual, May 1976.

  4. Lode, H., Köppe, P., Stahlmann, R. Zur Pharmakokinetik von Cefaclor und erste therapeutische Erfahrungen. Infection 7 (1979) Suppl. 6 S 600-S 602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Plaue, R., Müller, O., Fabricius, K., Bethke, R. O. Serum- und Gewebespiegel nach einmaliger Cefaclorgabe. Infection 7 (1979) 252–255.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Knothe, H. Wirkungsspektrum von Cefaclor. Diagnostik u. Intensivtherapie 4 (1979) 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wise, R., Andrews, J. M. A pharmacological andin vitro comparison of three oral cephalosporins. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 5 (1979) 601–607.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sanders, C. C. In vitro studies with cefaclor, a new oral cephalosporin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 12 (1977) 490–497.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Preston, D. A. Antibacterial activity of cefaclor. Infection 7 (1979) Suppl. 6 S 557-S 561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. O'Callaghan, C. H., Moris, A., Kirby, S., Shingler, A. H. Novel method for detection of β-lactamases by using a chromogenic cephalosporin substrate. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1 (1972) 283–288.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Park, C. H., Lopez, J. S., Cook, C. B. Acidometric agar plate method for ampicillin susceptibility testing ofHaemophilus influenzae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 13 (1978) 318–320.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Fass, R. J., Barnishan, J. Minimal inhibitory concentrations of 34 antimicrobial agents for control strainsEscherichia coli ATCC 25922 andPseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 16 (1979) 622–624.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Sinai, R., Hammerberg, S., Marks, M. I., Pai, C. H. In vitro susceptibility ofHaemophilus influenzae to sulfamethoxazoletrimethoprim and cefaclor, cephalexin, and cephradine. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 13 (1978) 861–864.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Neu, H. C., Fu, K. P. Cefaclor:In vitro spectrum of activity and beta-lactamase stability. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 13 (1978) 584–588.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Fass, R. J., Prior, R. B. Comparativein vitro activities of oral cephalosporins and competitive antibiotics against recent clinical isolates. Curr. Ther. Res. 24 (1978) 352–365.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jorgensen, J. H., Alexander, G. A. Comparative activities of selected beta-lactam antibiotics againstHaemophilus influenzae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 13 (1978) 342–343.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Nelson, J. D., Ginsburg, C. M., Tezlaff, T. R., Clahsen, J. Cefaclor therapy of otitis media in infancy. Current Chemotherapy. In:Siegenthaler, W., Lüthy, R. (eds.): Proc. 10th Intern. Congr. Chemother. Zürich, Vol. I, AMS, Washington, D. C. 1978, pp. 121–123.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McLinn, S. E. Comparative study of cefaclor, a new cephalosporin, and amoxicillin in the treatment of acute otitis media in children. Current Chemotherapy. Proc. 10th Intern. Congr. Chemother. Vol. I, AMS, Washington, D. C. 1978, 123–125.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Braveny, I. In-vitro-Aktivität von Cefaclor gegenHaemophilus influenzae im Vergleich zu verschiedenen oralen Chemotherapeutika. Infection 7 Suppl. 6 (1979) S 532-S 535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Watanakunakorn, C., Glotzbecker, C. Comparative susceptibility ofHaemophilus species to cefaclor, cefamandole, and five other cephalosporins and ampicillin, chloramphenicol, and tetracycline, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 15 (1979) 836–838.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tally, F. P., Jacobus, N. V., Barza, M. In vitro activity and serum protein-binding of cefaclor. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 5 (1979) 159–165.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mirret, S., Reller, L. B. Comparative activityin vitro of cefaclor, cephalexin, and cephradine. Curr. Ther. Res. 26 (1979) 145–151.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Braveny, I., Machka, K., Bartmann, K., Fabricius, K., Daschner, F., Petersen, K. F., Grimm, H., Ullmann, U., Freiesleben, H. Antibiotikaresistenz vonHaemophilus influenzae in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Dtsch. med. Wschr. 105 (1980) 1341–1344.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eickhoff, T. C., Ehret, J. M. In vitro comparison of cefoxitin, cefamandole, cephalexin, and cephalothin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 9 (1976) 994–999.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Yourassowsky, E., Schoutens, E., Vanderlinden, M. P. Comparative inhibitory activity of BL-S 640 and two other cephalosporins. J. Antibiotics XXVIII (1975) 590–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. del Busto, R., Haas, E., Madhavan, T., Burch, K., Cox, F., Fisher, E., Quinn, E., Pohlod, D. In vitro and clinical studies of cefatrizine, a new semisynthetic cephalosporin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 9 (1976) 397–405.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Buck, R. E., Price, K. E. Cefadroxil, a new broad-spectrum cephalosporin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 11 (1977) 324–330.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Bywater, M. J., Holt, H. A., Broughall, J. M., Reeves, D. S. Azlocillin, mezlocillin, pivmecillinam, mecillinam, and PC-904. In:Siegenthaler, W., Lüthy, R. (eds.): Proc. 10th Intern. Congr. Chemother. Zürich, Vol. I, AMS, Washington, D. C. 1978, pp. 624–626.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Verbist, L. Comparison of the activities of the new ureidopenicillins piperacillin, mezlocillin, azlocillin, and Bay k 4999 against gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 16 (1979) 115–119.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ruckdeschel, G., Belzer, O., Rossmann, B.: Zur antibiotischen Wirkung von Ampicillin und Piperacillin aufHaemophilus influenzae undHaemophilus parainfluenzae. In:Siegenthaler, W., Benkert, K. (Hrsg.): Piperacillin Symposium, Munich, 1980, S. 60–62.

  31. Williams, J. D., Andrews, J. Sensitivity ofHaemophilus influenzae to antibiotics. Br. Med. J. 1 (1974) 134–137.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Marks, M. I., Weinmaster, G. Influences of media and inocula on thein vitro susceptibility ofHaemophilus influenzae to co-trimoxazole, ampicillin, penicillin and chloramphenicol. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 8 (1975) 657–663.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Thornsberry, C., Kirven, L. A. Antimicrobial susceptibility ofHaemophilus influenzae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 6 (1974) 620–624.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Gootz, T. D., Sanders, C. C., Sanders, Jr. W. E. In vitro activity of furazlocillin (Bay k 4999) compared with those of mezlocillin, piperacillin, and standard beta-lactam antibiotics. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 15 (1979) 783–791.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laborabteilung Klinik Aprath, Postfach 11 10, D-5603, Wülfrath

    K. Bartmann &  R. Tarbuc

Authors
  1. K. Bartmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Tarbuc
    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

Bartmann, K., Tarbuc, R. In vitro activity of cefaclor against haemophilus influenzae in comparison to cephalexin, cephradine, cefadroxil, cefatrizine and ampicillin. Infection 9, 186–190 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01640977

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01640977

Keywords

Search

Navigation