4.7 Article

Comparative In Vitro Activities of SMT19969, a New Antimicrobial Agent, against Clostridium difficile and 350 Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Aerobic and Anaerobic Intestinal Flora Isolates

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 57, 期 10, 页码 4872-4876

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01136-13

关键词

-

资金

  1. Summit Corp. PLC.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The comparative in vitro activity of SMT19969, a novel, narrow-spectrum, nonabsorbable agent, was studied against 50 ribotype-defined Clostridium difficile strains, 174 Gram-positive and 136 Gram-negative intestinal anaerobes, and 40 Gram-positive aerobes. SMT19969 was one dilution more active against C. difficile isolates (MIC range, 0.125 to 0.5 mu g/ml; MIC90, 0.25 mu g/ml), including ribotype 027 strains, than fidaxomicin (range, 0.06 to 1 mu g/ml; MIC90, 0.5 mu g/ml) and two to six dilutions lower than either vancomycin or metronidazole. SMT19969 and fidaxomicin were generally less active against Gram-negative anaerobes, especially the Bacteroides fragilis group species, than vancomycin and metronidazole, suggesting that SMT19969 has a lesser impact on the normal intestinal microbiota that maintain colonization resistance. SMT19969 showed limited activity against other Gram-positive anaerobes, including Bifidobacteria species, Eggerthella lenta, Finegoldia magna, and Peptostreptococcus anaerobius, with MIC(90)s of >512, >512, 64, and 64 mu g/ml, respectively. Clostridium species showed various levels of susceptibility, with C. innocuum being susceptible (MIC90, 1 mu g/ml) and C. ramosum and C. perfringens being nonsusceptible (MIC90, >512 mu g/ml). Activity against Lactobacillus spp. (range, 0.06 to >512 mu g/ml; MIC90, >512 mu g/ml) was comparable to that of fidaxomicin and varied by species and strain. Gram-positive aerobic cocci (Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, E. faecium, and streptococci) showed high SMT19969 MIC90 values (128 to >512 mu g/ml).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据