The Effects of the Morphological Response of Enterobacteriaceae to Cephalosporins on PAE and CERT

REFERENCES

• Parker RF, Marsh HC. The action of penicillin on staphylococcus. J Bacteriol 1946; 51: 181–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanberger H, Svensson E, Nilsson M, Nilsson LE, Hörnsten EG, Maller R. Effects of imipenem on Escherichia coli studied using bioluminescence, viable counting and microscopy. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31: 245–60.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie FM, Gould IM, Chapman DG, Jason D. Comparison of methodologies used in assessing postantibiotic effect. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994; 34: 223–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie FM, Gould IM, Chapman DG, Jason D. Postantibiotic effect of meropenem on members of the family Enterobacteriaceae determined by five methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 2583–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odenholt I, Isaksson B, Nilsson L, Cars O. Postantibiotic effect and bactericidal effect of imipenem against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1989; 8: 136–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baquero F, Culebras E, Patron C, Perez-Diaz JC, Vicente MF. Post antibiotic effect of imipenem on Gram-positive and Gram-negative micro-organisms. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986; 18 Suppl E: 47–59.
   Google Scholar
• Hanberger H, Svensson E, Nilsson LE, Nilsson M. Control related effective regrowth time and post-antibiotic effect of meropenem on Gram-negative bacteria studied by bioluminescence and viable counts. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 35: 585–92.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roberts D, Higgs E, Rutman A, Cole P. Isolation of spheroplastic forms of Haemophilus influenzae from sputum in conventionally treated chronic bronchial sepsis using selective medium supplemented with N-acetyl-D-glucosamine: possible reservoir for re-emergence of infection. Br Med J 1984; 289: 1409–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hanberger H, Nilsson LE, Kihlstrom E, Maller R. Postantibiotic effect of β-lactam antibiotics on Escherichia coli evaluated by bioluminescence assay of bacterial ATP. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 102–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility Tests 4. Villanova PA, 1983
   Google Scholar
• Craig W, Gudmindsson S. Postantibiotic effect. In: Lorian V, editor. Antibiotics in laboratory medicine. 4th edn. Baltimore: Williams, Wilkins: 296–329.
   Google Scholar
• Gould IM, Jason AC, Milne K. Use of the Malthus Microbial Growth Analyser to study the post antibiotic effect of antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 24: 523–31.
   Google Scholar
• Jason AC, MacKenzie FM, Jason D, Gould IM. Automatic procedures for measuring post-antobiotic effect and determining random error. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994; 34: 669–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould IM, Wilson D, Milne K, Paterson A, Golder D, Russell D. Interaction of imipenem with erythromycin and tetracycline assessed by microdilution checkerboard techniques. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 2407–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie FM, Milne K, Gould IM. Relationship between postantibiotic effect, effective regrowth time and morphology of Gram-negative organisms after exposure to cefaclor, loracarbef and cefuroxime. In: Proceedings, Abstracts of the 7th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology, Infectious Diseases, Vienna, March 26–30, 1995. [Abstract No. 537].
   Google Scholar
• Richards JCS, Jason AC, Hobbs G, Gibson GM, Christie RH, et al. Electronic measurement of bacterial growth. J Physics E: Scientific Instruments 1978; 11: 560–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spratt B. Distinct penicillin binding proteins involved in the division, elongation and shape of Escherichia coli K12. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1975; 72: 2999–3003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BSAC Working Party on Antibiotic Sensitivity Testing. A guide to sensitivity testing. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27 Suppl D: 1–50.
   Google Scholar
• Barry AL, Thornsberry C. Susceptibility tests: diffusion test procedures. In: Balows A, Housler WJ, Hermann KL, Isenberg HD, Shadomy HJ, editors. Manual of clinical microbiology. Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1991: 1117–25.
   Google Scholar
• Doern GV, Vautour R, Parker D, Tubert T, Torres B. In vitro activity of loracarbef (LY163892), a new oral carbacephem antimicrobial agent, against respiratory isolates of Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 1504–7.
   Google Scholar
• Sato K, Okachi R, Matsukama I, Moshida K, Hirata T. In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activity of KT3777, a new orally active carbacephem. J Antibiotics 1989; 42: 1844–53.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie FM, Gould IM. Postantibiotic effect—a review. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32: 519–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson E, Hanberger H, Nilsson LE. Pharmacodynamic effects of antibiotics and antibiotic combinations on growing and nongrowing Staphylococcus epidermidis cells. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 107–11.
   Google Scholar
• Hanberger H. Pharmacodynamic effects of antibiotics. Studies on bacterial morphology, initial killing, postantibiotic effect and effective regrowth time. Scand J Infect Dis 1992; 24 (Suppl 81): 1–52.
   Google Scholar
• Bowker KE, Holt HA, Reeves DS, MacGowan AP. Bactericidal activity, postantiotic effect and modified controlled effective regrowth time of meropenem at high concentrations. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 38: 1055–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sides GD, Franson TR, DeSante KA, Black HR. A comprehensive review of the clinical pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of cefaclor. Clin Ther 1988; 11 (Suppl A): 5–15.
   Google Scholar
• Stokley RA. Correspondence. Cefaclor in the treatment of chronic bronchitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 28: 141–56.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson R, Cole P. Correspondence. Cefaclor in the treatment of chronic bronchitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 28: 141–56.
   Google Scholar