These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: In-vitro antimicrobial activity of Cefpirome: a new fourth-generation cephalosporin against clinically significant bacteria.
    Author: Hafeez S, Izhar M, Ahmed A, Zafar A, Naeem M.
    Journal: J Pak Med Assoc; 2000 Aug; 50(8):250-2. PubMed ID: 10992706.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To study the in-vitro antimicrobial activity of Cefpirome: A new fourth generation Cephalosporin in comparison with other agents against clinically significant Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. SETTING: A multi-center in-vitro study was conducted in 13 centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bacterial isolates--A total of 1300 isolates were collected from different clinical laboratories and hospitals at 13 centers. Organisms were identified by the API identification systems (API systems, SA Vericeu, France). The age and sex of each patient, type of hospital unit, source of the isolate and genus and species of the bacteria were recorded on standardized report forms. The sensitivity testing was carried out by the "NCCLS (modified Kirby-Bauer) method"--using Mueller-Hinton agar. RESULTS: The results suggest that Cefpirome has a potential clinical advantage against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria resistant to other third generation cephalosporins. CONCLUSION: Cefpirome was active against both gram-negative and gram-positive organisms. Cefpirome was more active than ceftazidime, cefoperazone, ceftizoxime and ceftriaxone against E. coli, Klebsiella spp, Enterobacter spp, Proteus spp, Salmonella typhi, Enterococci, methicillin sensitive Staphylococci and Betahemolytic Streptococci. The activity of Cefpirome was comparable with ceftazidime against pseudomonas aeruginosa. Cefpirome had the smallest numbers of resistant isolates. Cefpirome was more active than other third generation cephalosporins compared in this study against E. coli (87% vs 61%), Klebsiella spp (84% vs 56%), Enterobacter spp (88% vs 59%), Proteus spp (97% vs 92%), Salmonella typhi (98% vs 96%), methicillin sensitive Staphylococci (86% vs 59%) and Enterococci spp (82% vs 72%).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]