All issues
Predecessor
Volume 52, Issue 12
Displaying 1-3 of 3 articles from this issue
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|
-
MASAKAZU KOUDA, SHOKO HOMMA, IKUKO UDAGAWA, KEIKO TAMURA, JUNKO FUKUHA ...1999 Volume 52 Issue 12 Pages 681-689
Published: December 25, 1999
Released on J-STAGE: May 17, 2013
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSWe investigated the differences in judgments among four disc-diffusion methods on susceptibility testing ofarbekacin (ABK), vancomycin (VCM) and teicoplanin (TEIC) against 37 strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA). These results were compared with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) obtained from micro broth-dilution method.
A marked difference was noted in the judgment of susceptibility to TEIC in Tri-disc method, that is 2 strains (5.4%) fell into sensitive (+++), 34 strains (91.9%) into moderately sensitive (++) and 1 strain (2.7%) intomoderately resistant (+), while in Sensi-disc method all strains fell into sensitive (S).
According to the MICs, no strain of the MRSA tested revealed resistance to ABK, VCM and TEIC. Consequently, these three antimicrobial agents were thoughto be effective on MRSA infections.
From these results, we concluded that Tri-disc method for glycopeptide against MRSA, especially for TEIC, is not recommendable as a disc-diffusion method in susceptibility testing.View full abstractDownload PDF (969K) -
AKIRA WATANABE, YUTAKA TOKUE, HIROSHI TAKAHASHI, TORU KIKUCHI, TAKAO K ...1999 Volume 52 Issue 12 Pages 690-694
Published: December 25, 1999
Released on J-STAGE: May 17, 2013
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSThe in vitro antibacterial activity of biapenem (BIPM), a new carbapenem antibiotic, was compared withthose of imipenem (IPM), panipenem (PAPM), meropenem (MEPM), ceftazidime (CAZ) and piperacillin (PIPC) against 280 isolates of 9 respiratory pathogens.
The MIC90s of biapenem (BIPM) for methicillin-susceptible Stophylococcus aureus (MSSA), methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), streptococcus pneumoniae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Pseudomonasaeruginosa, and Haemophilus influenzae were 0.12, 32, 0.25, 0.06, 4and8μg/ml, respectively.
In comparison with other antibiotics, the activity of biapenem (BIPM) for P.aeruginosa was as potent asmeropenem (MEPM), but for H.influenzae it was slightly less than those of other antibiotics, and for otherrespiratory pathogens it was as potent as those of other antibiotics.
The MIC90s of biapenem (BIPM) for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter cloacae andserratia marcescens were 0.06, 1, 1, 0.5μg/ml, respectively, and which were equal to or somewhat lower thanthose of other antibiotics.
Biapenem (BIPM) showed strong activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, especiallyP.aeruginosa in general.
Based on these results, biapenem (BIPM) is seemed to be highly useful antibiotic for the treatment of respiratory infections with several organism.View full abstractDownload PDF (580K) -
YUMIKO SUZUKI, YOSHIHIRO MATSUMOTO, CHISATO NISHINARI, HARUMI ENDO, RI ...1999 Volume 52 Issue 12 Pages 695-720
Published: December 25, 1999
Released on J-STAGE: May 17, 2013
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSIn order to evaluate antimicrobial activity of meropenem (MEPM), minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of MEPM and control drugs were determined against clinical isolates in 1997.
The results were as follows;
1. Antimicrobial activities of MEPM against Gram-positive bacteria were stronger than those of cephems (CEPs) and were approximately equal to those of imipenem (IPM) and panipenem (PAPM).
2. Carbapenems showed strong antimicrobial activities against Enterobacteriaceae, Glucose non-fermentative Gram-negative rods and Bacteroides fragilis group that were multiple drug resistant including the third generation CEPs. Antimicrobial activities of MEPM against these organisms were stronger than those of IPM and PAPM. By comparing antimicrobial activities of MEPM against Gram-negative bacteria in 1997 with thoseobtained in 1993, increase of resistance was not observed.
3. MIC-ranges of MEPM were low against the resistant strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to IPM and PAPM. It was considered that these resistant strains were not expressing oprD products (D2 porin protein), forming main outer membrane porin channels of carbapenems and basic amino acids.View full abstractDownload PDF (2471K)
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|