Affiliation:
1. Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota 55901
Abstract
Inhibitory activity of cephalexin, cephradine, and cefaclor was compared by the WHO-ICS agar dilution technique. Cefaclor was substantially more active against staphylococci, streptococci, gonococci, meningococci,
Haemophilus, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Citrobacter diversus, Proteus mirabilis
, salmonellae, and shigellae than was cephalexin, which in turn was more active than cephradine. Cefaclor appeared to be less resistant to staphylococcal penicillinase than did the other two agents. None of these cephalosporins was active against
Enterobacter, Serratia
, indole-positive
Proteeae, Pseudomonas
, or
Bacteroides fragilis
.
Publisher
American Society for Microbiology
Subject
Infectious Diseases,Pharmacology (medical),Pharmacology
Reference14 articles.
1. Haemophilus influensae type B susceptibility to 17 antibiotics;Emerson B. B.;J. Pediatr.,1975
2. Antibiotic sensitivity testing report ofan international collaborative study;Ericsson H. M.;Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand. Sect. B Suppl.,1971
3. Relative inactivation by Staphylococcus aureus of eight cephalosporn antibiotics;Fong I. W.;Antimicrob. Ag. Chemother.,1976
4. Double-blind comparison of oephradine and cephalexin in the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections due to Staphylococcus aureus;Hubeher J. A.;Curr. Ther. Res. Clin. Exp.,1976
5. Cepbradine: antibacterial activity and clinical effectiveness;Klasterak J.;Chemotherapy,1973
Cited by
109 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献