The Annals Evolution of Clinical Pharmacy | Now Available
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Drug Intelligence & Clinical Pharmacy: Vol. 17, No. 9, pp. 615-622.
© 1983 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garzone, P
Right arrow Articles by Yu, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Garzone, P
Right arrow Articles by Yu, V.


Research Articles

Third-generation and investigational cephalosporins: II. Microbiologic review and clinical summaries

P Garzone, J Lyon, and VL Yu

In vitro susceptibility of Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Hemophilus influenzae, Bacteroides fragilis, and Neisseria gonorrhea to three new second-generation and eight third-generation cephalosporins is tabulated. In general, the newer cephalosporins have an extended spectrum of activity against gram-negative bacteria, including Serratia marcescens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Neisseria gonorrhea. They also tend to be active against anaerobes, including Bacteroides fragilis. However, they generally have less activity against gram-positive bacteria when compared with the first- and second-generation cephalosporins. Clinical summaries are given for each of the cephalosporins, with emphasis on the results of comparative clinical trials. These cephalosporins may prove especially useful in nosocomial infections with resistant organisms, intraabdominal infections, febrile episodes in the granulocytopenic patient, and meningitis.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck SurgHome page
J. T. Johnson, V. L. Yu, E. N. Myers, R. L. Wagner, and B. A. Sigler
Cefazolin vs Moxalactam? A Double-blind Randomized Trial of Cephalosporins in Head and Neck Surgery
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, February 1, 1986; 112(2): 151 - 153.
[Abstract] [PDF]




homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1983 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.