(1) The antibacterial activity of ciclacillin (ACPC) with inoculum size of 108 cells/ml was four times less potent than that of ampicillin (ABPC) and 4-8times less potent than that of AMPC, but was 4-8times more potent than that of CEX against Streptococcus pyogenes.For Streptococcus pneumoniae, ACPC was 2-4times less active than ABPC and AMPC, but 16-32times more active than CEX.Staphylococcus aureus was 4-8times less susceptible to ACPC than to ABPC and AMPC, but 1-2times more susceptible than to CEX.Against E.coli, ACPC was as active as CEX, 2-4times less active than ABPC, and 4-8times less active than AMPC.
(2) It was suposed that ACPC was more resistant to penicillinase and more antibacterial with inoculum size of 106cells/ml than with 108 cells/ml.ACPC was 4-8times less active than ABPC, and AMPC against Staphylococcus aureus with 108cells/mi, while with 106cells/ml, it was 2times less active than ABPC and AMPC.
(3) ACPC-resistant strains (>3.13pg/ml) of Streptococcus pyogenes and Streptococcus pneumoniae were not found.
(4) A difference was noted in MIC of three semi-synthetic penicillins, ACPC, ABPC and AMPC, against Staphylococcus aureus, and E. coil between the sources from which their strains were isolated.
(5) There were many strains resistant to erythromycin (EM) and josamycin (JM)(>60%) respectively to both antibiotics) in Streptococcus pyogenes and pus-isolated Staphylococcus aureus. No strains of Streptococcus pyogenes, were found resistant to EM and JM.
View full abstract