In vitro activity of cefbuperazone against anaerobic bacteria

Abstract

The in vitro activity of cefbuperazone was compared with that of cefoxitin, moxalactam, and piperacillin against 305 strains of anaerobic bacteria. Piperacillin was the most active overall, inhibiting 97% of all anaerobes tested at 128 ,ug/ml. Cefbuperazone had poor activity against the Bacteroides fragilis group and Clostridium difficile (43 and 0% susceptible, respectively) but good activity (90.5%) against all other anaerobic bacterial species tested.The ever increasing introduction of 1-lactam antibiotics into the antimicrobial market, along with expanded awareness of the importance of anaerobic bacteria in infectious diseases, has underlined the need for information on the efficacy of these agents against anaerobic bacteria (1). It is important to note that methodological differences between laboratories may affect the results; thus, it is difficult to draw conclusions from a number of studies unless the same techniques are used throughout.In this report, the activity against anaerobic bacteria of cefbuperazone, a new semisynthetic parenterally administered cephamycin antibiotic, was compared with that of cefoxitin, moxalactam, and piperacillin, drugs commonly used in anaerobic infections.All bacteria were randomly selected recent clinical isolates from the Veterans Administration Wadsworth Medical Center, Los Angeles. Bacteria were identified by using established procedures (2,3). MICs were determined by an agar dilution technique described previously (3) and 69% of all strains tested, respectively. These results for cefoxitin and moxalactam are in excellent agreement with other recent studies from our laboratory (4). Cefbuperazone had particularly poor activity against the B. fragilis group overall (43% susceptible) and Clostridium difficile (0% susceptible) but relatively good activity (90.5% susceptible) against all other species tested. Moxalactam and cefoxitin also displayed relatively poor activity (64 and 77% susceptible, respectively) against the B. fragilis group overall, although activity against the species B. fragilis itself was excellent (see below). Moxalactam and cefoxitin were inactive against C. difficile as noted in previous reports from our laboratory; moxalactam inhibited 83% and cefoxitin inhibited 90% of all other strains tested (excluding C. difficile).Piperacillin was the only antimicrobial agent tested that was active against C. difficile and was the most active agent against other Clostridium species. Gram-positive, nonsporeforming rods were very susceptible to both piperacillin (100%o) and cefoxitin (97%) and less so to both cefbuperazone and moxalactam (81%

In vitro activity of cefoperazone plus sulbactam compared with that of other antimicrobial agents against anaerobic bacteria

“…As noted in previous reports from our laboratory (16)(17)(18) and from others (3), it is crucial to differentiate between the species B. fragilis and the B. fragilis group. B. fragilis tends to be much more susceptible to many antimicrobial agents than the other members of the group.…”

In vitro activity of cefotetan compared with that of other antimicrobial agents against anaerobic bacteria

“…As noted in other reports by our laboratory (12)(13)(14) and others (1,2), it is crucial to differentiate between the species B. fragilis and the B. fragilis group. B. fragilis tends to be much more susceptible to many antimicrobial agents than the other members of the group, and it is often difficult to compare data from different laboratories if the same species are not included.…”