JVDI Advertisement
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Salmon, S.
Right arrow Articles by Yancey, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Salmon, S.
Right arrow Articles by Yancey, R., Jr
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol 8, Issue 3, 332-336
Copyright © 1996 by American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians


Articles

In vitro activity of ceftiofur and its primary metabolite, desfuroylceftiofur, against organisms of veterinary importance

SA Salmon, JL Watts, and RJ Yancey Jr

Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc., Kalamazoo, MI 49001, USA.

Ceftiofur (XNL) and its primary metabolite, desfuroylceftiofur (DXNL), were evaluated for in vitro activity against 539 isolates from veterinary sources. Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Pasteurella spp., Haemophilus somnus, Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, staphylococci, and streptococci were tested. Overall, XNL and DXNL were equivalent in activity against the gram-negative organisms with all minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) within 1 serial dilution. Against the staphylococci, MIC difference of 2-3 serial dilutions were detected with an MIC90 for XNL and DXNL of 1.0 and 4.0-8.0 micrograms/ml, respectively. Although the MIC90 obtained for Streptococcus suis for each compound was within 1 dilution, the MIC values against individual strains were 2-3 dilutions greater for DXNL than for XNL. The MICs obtained with the bovine and equine streptococci for DXNL (MIC90 = 0.03 microgram/ml) were 5 serial dilutions higher than those obtained for XNL (MIC90 < or = 0.0019). Although DXNL was less active than XNL against the streptococci, these differences were not clinically important because both XNL and DXNL were highly active for these bacteria. Although these differences are of little importance with the streptococci, they may have important implications for susceptibility testing of the staphylococci. In conclusion, with the exception of the staphylococci, both XNL and DXNL were highly active against the organisms tested, with MICs for both compounds several fold lower than plasma levels achieved during dosing of XNL.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.