[Post-marketing surveillance of antibacterial activities of cefozopran against various clinical isolates--I. Gram-positive bacteria].

Abstract

As a post-marketing surveillance, the in vitro antibacterial activities of cefozopran (CZOP), an agent of cephems, against various clinical isolates were yearly evaluated and compared with those of other cephems, oxacephems, penicillins, and carbapenems. Changes in the bacterial sensitivity for CZOP were also evaluated with the resistance ratio calculated with breakpoint MIC. Sixteen species (1,913 strains) of Gram-positive bacteria were isolated from the clinical materials annually collected from 1996 to 2000, and consisted of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA; n = 178), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA; n = 199), methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis (MSSE; n = 98), methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis (MRSE; n = 164), Staphylococcus haemolyticus (n = 72), Staphylococcus saprophyticus (n = 28), Enterococcus faecalis (n = 206), Enterococcus faecium (n = 91), Enterococcus avium (n = 72), Streptococcus pyogenes (n = 133), Streptococcus agalactiae (n = 138), penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae (PSSP; n = 133), penicillin-intermediate resistant S. pneumoniae (PISP; n = 100), penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae (PRSP; n = 29), Streptococcus milleri group (n = 135) and Peptostreptococcus spp. (n = 137). CZOP possessed comparable antibacterial activities against MSSA and MSSE to other cephems, and was also effective on MRSE but not on MRSA. An antibacterial activity of CZOP against S. saprophyticus was comparable to or higher than other cephems. CZOP, however, did not indicate an antibacterial activity against S. haemolyticus, just like other cephems. An antibacterial activity of CZOP against E. faecalis was comparable to cefpirome (CPR) and higher than other cephems. No antibacterial activity of CZOP against E. faecium and E. avium was observed, just like other drugs. An antibacterial activity of CZOP against S. pyogenes was as potent as that of cefotiam (CTM), cefepime (CFPM) and CPR, and that against S. agalactiae was also preferable. CZOP and other cephems also had a preferable antibacterial activity against S. milleri group that was most sensitive to benzylpenicillin. An antibacterial activity of CZOP against Peptostreptococcus spp. was preferable but weaker than that of cefazolin, CTM and cefmetazole. The resistance ratio estimated with breakpoint MIC of CZOP was 96.5% in MRSA, 93.1% in PRSP, 60.0% in PISP, 40.3% in S. haemolyticus, 22.3% in E. faecalis, and 15.9% in MRSE. Those resistance ratios were similar to those for CFPM, but E. faecalis showed 90.8% resistance for CFPM. The difference in the resistance ratio of E. faecalis demonstrated that CZOP successfully maintained its antibacterial activity against this species. In conclusion, no remarkable annual change in the antibacterial activities of CZOP against the Gram-positive bacteria was observed. The sensitivities of PISP and PRSP to CZOP, however, was suggested to be decreasing.