1887

Abstract

SUMMARY

The activities of three sulphonamides and trimethoprim against strains of have been studied. Sulphadiazine had most activity, sulphadimidine had little, and the activity of sulphamethoxazole was intermediate. According to their sensitivity to sulphamethoxazole, strains were divided into two groups: “highly resistant” (16%, MIC>1000 μg per ml) and “moderately resistant” (84%, MIC≤ 1000 μg per ml). The former were resistant on disk testing to Sulphatriad 300 μg. Sulphamethoxazole and trimethoprim did not act in synergy against them.

The moderately resistant strains were sensitive to Sulphatriad; trimethoprim and sulphamethoxazole showed marked synergy against them in agar-plate dilution tests. The concentrations of trimethoprim and sulphamethoxazole necessary for synergy lay for each drug within the range of concentrations at which they have been found in urine, and the ratio of their MICs when acting in synergy was similar to the ratio of their concentrations in urine.

It is suggested that a disk containing trimethoprim and sulphamethoxazole in a ratio of 1:2 rather than 1:20 would be more appropriate when testing strains from urine for their sensitivity to co-trimoxazole.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-10-3-273
1977-08-01
2022-01-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/10/3/medmicro-10-3-273.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-10-3-273&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Amyes S. G. B. 1974; The susceptibility of Gram-negative bacteria to antifolate chemotherapeutic agents. Ph.D. Thesis University of London; p 81
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brumfitt W., Pursell R. 1972; Double-blind trial to compare ampicillin, cephalexin, co-trimoxazole and trimethoprim in treatment of urinary infection. Br. med. J 2:673
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bushby S. R. M. 1969; Combined antibacterial action in vitro of trimethoprim and sulpho-namides. Post-grad. med. J 45: Suppl 10
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bushby S. R. M., Barnett M. 1967; Trimethoprim-sulphonamides: in vitro sensitivity of 384 strains of bacteria. In Proc. 5th int. Congr. Chemother. (Vienna 1967), Abst Al-6/11:753
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Van Camp K. 1970; Etude clinique comparative d’un nouvel agent chimiotherapique dans les infections aigues des voies urinaires. Proc. 5th int. Congr. infect. Dis 6:31
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Coppi F. 1970; L’associazione sulfametossazolotrimethoprim nella terapia delle infezioni urinarie. Archo ital. Urol. Nefrol 43:184
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Davis B. D., Mingioli E. S. 1950; Mutants of Escherichia coli requiring methionine or vitamin B 12. J. Bact 60:17
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Elion G. B., Singer S., Hitchings G. H. 1954; Antagonists of nucleic acid derivatives, VIII. Synergism in combinations of biochemically related antimetabolites. J. biol. Chem 208:477
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fourrier A., Vallet P. M. 1971; Experimentation clinique de l’association trimetho-prim-sulphametoxazole. J. Med. Nord. Est 8:101
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fowle A. S. E. 1968; Trimethoprim. Br. med. J 2:557
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gruneberg R. N., Kolbe R. 1969; Trimethoprim in the treatment of urinary infections in hospital. Br. med. J I:545
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hamilton-Miller J. M. T., Grey D. 1975; Resistance to trimethoprim in klebsiellae isolated before its introduction. J. Antimicrob. Chemother 1:213
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hofstetter A. 1970; Erfahungen mit dem Breitband Chemotherapeutikum Eusaprim bei entziindlichen Erkrangungen des Urogenitaltraktes. Wehrmed. Mschr 14:114
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kaplan S. A., Weinfeld R. E., Abruzzo C. W., McFaden K., Lewis Jack M., Weissman L. 1973; Pharmacokinetic profile of trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole in man. J. infect. Dis 128: Suppl S547
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kerry D. W., Hamilton-Miller J. M. T., Brumfitt W. 1975; Trimethoprim and rifampicin: in vitro activities separately and in combination. J. Antimicrob. Chemother 1:417
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Phillips I. 1969; Identification of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the clinical laboratory. /. med. Microbiol 2:9
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Phillips I., Rimmer D., Ridley M., Lynn R., Warren C. 1970; In vitro activity of twelve antibacterial agents against Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Lancet 1:263
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Phillips I., Warren C. 1974; Susceptibility of Bacteriodes fragilis to trimethoprim and sulphamethoxazole. Lancet 1:827
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ritzerfeld W., Hasch B. 1972; On the sensitivity of Pseudomonas and Proteus to the combination of trimethoprim and sulphamethoxazole. Chemotherapy 17:348
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Schwartz D. E., Rieder J. 1970; Pharmacokinetics of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim in man and their distribution in the rat. Chemotherapy 15:337
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Simmons N. A. 1970; Colistin, sulphamethoxazole, and trimethoprim in synergy against Gram-negative bacteria. J. clin. Path 23:757
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Stratford B. C., Dixson S. 1971; Results of treatment of 108 patients using trimethoprim plus sulphamethoxazole. Med. J. Aust 1:526
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Wellcome Medical Division 1975; Septrin for bacterial infections: clinical applications. Wellcome Foundation Ltd p 12
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-10-3-273
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-10-3-273
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error