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: Comparative in vitro activities of azithromycin, Bay y 3118, levofloxacin, sparfloxacin, and 11 other oral antimicrobial agents against 194 aerobic and anaerobic bite wound isolates.
    Author: Goldstein EJ, Nesbit CA, Citron DM.
    Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother; 1995 May; 39(5):1097-100. PubMed ID: 7625795.
    Abstract:
    The activities of sparfloxacin, levofloxacin, Bay y 3118, azithromycin, cefprozil, loracarbef, and nine other oral antimicrobial agents against 194 aerobic and anaerobic clinical bite wound isolates were determined by the agar dilution method. Sparfloxacin, levofloxacin, and Bay y 3118 were active against all aerobic isolates (MICs at which 90% of the isolates are inhibited [MIC90], < or = 1.0 microgram/ml for sparfloxacin and levofloxacin and 0.1 microgram/ml for Bay y 3118) and many anaerobic isolates, with the exception of the fusobacteria. Azithromycin was more active than erythromycin by 1 to 2 dilutions against many aerobes, including Pasteurella multocida and Eikenella corrodens, and by 2 to 4 dilutions against anaerobic isolates. Cefprozil was more active (MIC90, < or = 1 microgram/ml) than loracarbef (MIC90, < or = 4 micrograms/ml) against aerobic gram-positive isolates, but both had poor activity (MIC90, > or = 16 micrograms/ml) against peptostreptococci. Both cefprozil and loracarbef had MIC90s of < or = 0.5 micrograms/ml against P. multocida.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]