Select data courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

© 2026 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.

This site is protected by VikingCloud's Trusted Commerce program
      Home

    Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    Subject:
    Infectious Diseases
    Publisher:
    Oxford University Press — Oxford University Press
    ISSN:
    0305-7453
    Scimago Journal Rank:
    203

    2026

    Volume 81
    Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2025

    Volume 81
    Supplement 1 (Nov)Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 80
    Supplement 4 (Oct)
    Supplement 3 (Nov)
    Supplement 2 (Aug)
    Supplement 1 (Mar)
    Issue 12 (Oct)
    Issue 11 (Oct)
    Issue 10 (Aug)
    Issue 9 (Aug)
    Issue 8 (Jul)
    Issue 7 (May)
    Issue 6 (May)
    Issue 5 (Feb)
    Issue 4 (Feb)
    Issue 3 (Jan)

    2024

    Volume 80
    Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 79
    Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)

    2023

    Volume 79
    Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 78
    Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Feb)

    2022

    Volume 78
    Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 77
    Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Jul)Issue 10 (Jul)Issue 9 (Jun)Issue 8 (May)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Mar)Issue 5 (Feb)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Feb)

    2021

    Volume Advance Article
    AugustJulyJulyJuneMayMayAprilAprilMarchMarchFebruary
    Volume 77
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Sep)
    Volume 76
    Supplement 4 (Nov)Supplement 3 (Sep)Supplement 2 (Aug)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Jun)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Mar)Issue 5 (Jan)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)

    2020

    Volume Advance Article
    JulyMayMayAprilApril
    Volume 2020
    JulyJuneMayAprilMarch
    Volume 76
    Issue 5 (Dec)Issue 4 (Dec)
    Volume 75
    Supplement 2 (Dec)Supplement 1 (Apr)Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2019

    Volume Advance Article
    DecemberJulyJune
    Volume 2019
    August
    Volume 75
    Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 3 (Dec)
    Volume 74
    Supplement 5 (Nov)Supplement 4 (Aug)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2018

    Volume Advance Article
    Supplement 7 (Jul)Supplement 6 (Jun)JulyJulyJuneJuneMayAprilMarchIssue 8 (May)Issue 8 (May)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Mar)Issue 6 (Mar)
    Volume 73
    Supplement 6 (Jun)Supplement 5 (Apr)Supplement 4 (Mar)Supplement 3 (Mar)Supplement 2 (Feb)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)

    2017

    Volume Advance Article
    Issue 6 (Dec)
    Volume 73
    Issue 3 (Nov)
    Volume 72
    Supplement 2 (Sep)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2016

    Volume 2016
    October
    Volume 71
    Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2015

    Volume 70
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Apr)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (Feb)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2014

    Volume 70
    Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 2 (Oct)
    Volume 69
    Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2013

    Volume 68
    Supplement 3 (Nov)Supplement 2 (Jul)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2012

    Volume 67
    Supplement 1 (Jul)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2011

    Volume Advance Article
    August
    Volume 66
    Supplement 6 (Dec)Supplement 5 (Jun)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Apr)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2010

    Volume 65
    Supplement 4 (Nov)Supplement 3 (Nov)Supplement 2 (Apr)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2009

    Volume 2009
    February
    Volume 64
    Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 63
    Supplement 1 (May)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (May)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2008

    Volume Advance Article
    April
    Volume 2008
    December
    Volume 62
    Supplement 3 (Nov)Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 61
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2007

    Volume 60
    Supplement 1 (Aug)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 59
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2006

    Volume Advance Article
    September
    Volume 2006
    November
    Volume 59
    Issue 2 (Nov)
    Volume 58
    Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 57
    Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2005

    Volume 56
    Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 55
    Supplement 2 (Mar)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2004

    Volume Advance Article
    September
    Volume 2004
    September
    Volume 54
    Supplement 1 (Aug)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 53
    Supplement 2 (May)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2003

    Volume Advance Article
    OctoberSeptember
    Volume 2003
    JuneMarch
    Volume 52
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 51
    Supplement 3 (Jun)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2002

    Volume Advance Article
    NovemberSeptember
    Volume 2002
    OctoberApril
    Volume 50
    Supplement 3 (Dec)Supplement 2 (Sep)Supplement 1 (Jul)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 49
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2001

    Volume Advance Article
    December
    Volume 2001
    July
    Volume 48
    Supplement 2 (Sep)Supplement 1 (Jul)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 47
    Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2000

    Volume Advance Article
    March
    Volume 46
    Supplement 3 (Jul)Supplement 2 (Aug)Supplement 1 (Aug)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 45
    Supplement 4 (Apr)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1999

    Volume 44
    Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 43
    Supplement 3 (Jun)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1998

    Volume 42
    Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 41
    Supplement 4 (Jun)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1997

    Volume 40
    Supplement 2 (Dec)Supplement 1 (Dec)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 39
    Supplement 2 (Jun)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1996

    Volume 38
    Supplement A (Jul)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 37
    Supplement C (Jun)Supplement B (May)Supplement A (May)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1995

    Volume 36
    Supplement B (Oct)Supplement A (Jul)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 35
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1994

    Volume 34
    Supplement A (Aug)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 33
    Supplement A (May)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1993

    Volume 32
    Supplement B (Nov)Supplement A (Jul)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 31
    Supplement E (Jan)Supplement D (Jan)Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1992

    Volume 30
    Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 29
    Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1991

    Volume 28
    Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 27
    Supplement D (Jan)Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1990

    Volume 26
    Supplement F (Jan)Supplement E (Jan)Supplement D (Jan)Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 25
    Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1989

    Volume 24
    Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 23
    Supplement E (Jan)Supplement D (Jan)Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1988

    Volume 22
    Supplement D (Oct)Supplement C (Jul)Supplement B (Jul)Supplement A (Jul)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 21
    Supplement D (Jan)Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1987

    Volume 20
    Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 19
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1986

    Volume 18
    Supplement E (Jul)Supplement D (Nov)Supplement C (Oct)Supplement B (Oct)Supplement A (Jul)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 17
    Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)
    Volume 16
    Issue 6 (Dec)

    1985

    Volume 16
    Supplement A (Jan)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 15
    Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1984

    Volume 14
    Supplement D (Jan)Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 13
    Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1983

    Volume 12
    Supplement D (Jan)Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 11
    Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1982

    Volume 10
    Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 9
    Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1981

    Volume 8
    Supplement D (Jan)Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
    Volume 7
    Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1980

    Volume 6
    Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1979

    Volume 5
    Supplement B (Nov)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1978

    Volume 4
    Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1977

    Volume 3
    Supplement C (Jan)Supplement B (Jan)Supplement A (Jan)Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1976

    Volume 2
    Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

    1975

    Volume 1
    Supplement 4 (Dec)Supplement 3 (Sep)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

    0031

    Volume 0031
    December

    0024

    Volume Advance Article
    May

    0018

    Volume 0018
    January

    0016

    Volume 0016
    January
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Preface

    Davey,, Peter;PechÈre,, Jean-Claude;Speller,, David

    1988 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    doi: 10.1093/jac/22.Supplement_B.iiipmid: N/A

    Article PDF first page preview Close This content is only available as a PDF. © 1988 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Early studies on in-vitro and experimental activity of spiramycin:

    Chabbert, Yves, A.

    1988 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    doi: 10.1093/jac/22.Supplement_B.1pmid: 3053564

    Abstract This review of spiramycin activity in vitro is based mainly on early studies. The MICs of spiramycin for common pathogenic bacteria such as staphylococci, streptococci and pneumococci are higher than those of erythromycin. Conversely, in experimental models, the activity of spiramycin is equal to or greater than that of erythromycin. In addition, the activity of spiramycin on Neisseria, Legionella, Mycoplasma, Chlamydia, and Toxoplasma spp. completes its antimicrobial spectrum and shows that spiramycin covers the majority of agents responsible for respiratory tract infections. The ‘spiramycin paradox’—the discrepancy between the relatively modest activity of spiramycin in vitro and its excellent activity in vivo will be explained by other papers. Its high tissue and intracellular concentrations, and the slow recovery of bacteria submitted to spiramycin are of great importance to account for its activity in vivo. This content is only available as a PDF. © 1988 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Mechanism of action of spiramycin and other macrolides

    Brisson-Noël,, Anne;Trieu-Cuot,, Patrick;Courvalin,, Patrice

    1988 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    doi: 10.1093/jac/22.Supplement_B.13pmid: 3053566

    Abstract Macrolide antibiotics constitute a group of 12 to 16-membered lactone rings substituted with one or more sugar residues, some of which may be amino sugars. They inhibit bacterial protein synthesis both in vivo and in vitro with varying potencies. Macrolides are generally bacteriostatic, although some of these drugs may be bactericidal at very high concentrations. The mechanism of action of macrolides has been a matter of controversy for some time. Spiramycin, a 16-membered macrolide, inhibits translocation by binding to bacterial 50S ribosomal subunits with an apparent 1 : 1 stoichiometry. This antibiotic is a potent inhibitor of the binding to the ribosome of both donor and acceptor substrates. Spiramycin induces rapid breakdown of polyribosomes, an effect which has formerly been interpreted as occurring by normal ribosomal run-off followed by an antibiotic-induced block at or shortly after initiation of a new peptide. However, there is now convincing evidence that spiramycin, and probably all macrolides, act primarily by stimulating the dissociation of peptidyl-tRNA from ribosomes during translocation. Although the ribosomes of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms are susceptible to macrolides, these antibiotics are mainly used against Gram-positive bacteria since they are unable to enter the porins of Gram-negative bacteria. Resistance to macrolides in clinical isolates is most frequently due to post-transcriptional methylation of an adenine residue of 23S ribosomal RNA, which leads to co-resistance to macrolides, lincosamides and streptogramins type B (the so-called MLSB phenotype). Other mechanisms of resistance involving cell impermeability or drug inactivation have been detected in Staphylococcus spp. and Escherichia coli. These strains are resistant to 14-membered macrolides (erythromycin and oleandomycin) but remain susceptible to spiramycin. This content is only available as a PDF. © 1988 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Effect of spiramycin on adhesiveness and phagocytosis of Gram-positive cocci

    Desnottes, J., F.;Diallo,, N.;Moret,, G.

    1988 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    doi: 10.1093/jac/22.Supplement_B.25pmid: 3182444

    Abstract Three strains of Staphylococcus aureus, serotype 18, Cowan I and serotype 66438, and different species of streptococci (Streptococcus pyogenes, Str. mutans, Str. sanguis and Str. faecalis) were tested for their adherence to buccal cells (as measured by interference contrast microscopy) and phagocytosis by rat polymorphonuclear leucocytes (PMNs) (as measured by fluorescence microscopy with a vital fluorochrome, acridine orange). Pretreatment of cocci with serial two-fold dilutions of spiramycin (from 1/2 to 1/1024 the MIC), increased the diameter of bacterial cells and decreased the adherence of staphylococci and streptococci to buccal cells. Exposure of streptococci to 1 /4 the MIC of spiramycin led to an increase of the phagocytic capacity of PMNs. Pretreatment of PMNs with a therapeutic concentration (2 mg/1) also stimulated the phagocytosis of streptococci. Action of spiramycin on the phagocytosis of staphylococci varied according to the strain tested. Although in-vitro results cannot be directly compared with in-vivo data, it is of interest that spiramycin decreases adherence of different Gram-positive cocci and enhances phagocytic capacity of PMNs. This content is only available as a PDF. © 1988 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Sub-inhibitory and post-antibiotic effects of spiramycin and erythromycin on Staphylococcus aureus

    Webster,, Carol;Ghazanfar,, Katayoun;Slack,, Richard

    1988 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    doi: 10.1093/jac/22.Supplement_B.33pmid: 3182445

    Abstract The antibacterial responses of clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus to spiramycin and erythromycin were compared. Conventional MICs showed erythromycin-sensitive strains to be 16–32 times less sensitive to spiramycin. MBCs were only four to eight times higher for spiramycin. Erythromycin resistant S. aureus were more frequently encountered. Concentrations of both macrolides at i MIC produced antibacterial effects. Post-antibiotic effects were more marked with spiramycin. After 3 h exposure to 4 × MIC of antibiotic the delay in regrowth of S. aureus was 5 h for erythromycin and 9 h for spiramycin. In a continuous cultivation model, spiramycin produced an inhibitory effect on S. aureus for 12 h whereas the effect of erythromycin was only apparent for 6 h. In conclusion, spiramycin is more active against staphylococci in vitro than would be expected by its modest MICs. This content is only available as a PDF. © 1988 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    A seventeen-year epidemiological survey of antimicrobial resistance in pneumococci in two hospitals

    Buu-Hoï, A., Y.;Goldstein, F., W.;Acar, J., F.

    1988 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    doi: 10.1093/jac/22.Supplement_B.41pmid: 3182446

    Abstract During a 17 year period (1970–1986), 2753 clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae isolated in two hospitals were serotyped and tested for antibiotic susceptibility. In the last ten years the number of multiply resistant strains has increased to 60% of the resistant isolates. Resistance to tetracycline was already present in 14% of the isolates in 1970, and was the most frequent resistance encountered during this study (30% of the strains). Resistance to chloramphenicol was first detected in 1972, but this resistance has remained infrequent (3%). Resistance to penicillin is extremely rare and since 1978, only six strains with relative penicillin resistance (MIC 0·1–1·0 mg/1) have been isolated. Resistance to macrolides, lincosamides and streptogramin B (MLSB resistant phenotype) was first detected in 1976. From 1983 to 1986, 131 isolates were MLSB resistant strains. These strains belonged to 20 different serotypes but 75% of the MLSB resistant pneumococci belonged to serotypes 6, 23, 19 and 14 which were among the most frequently isolated serotypes. In contrast serotypes 3 and 9 were epidemic but not resistant during the same period. Resistance markers in S. pneumoniae are often related to particular serotypes. The large monthly fluctuation in the isolation of resistant strains might explain the variable clinical results of empirical treatment of respiratory infections with macrolides. This content is only available as a PDF. © 1988 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Spiramycin: in-vitro activity on Branhamella catarrhalis

    Riou, J., Y.;Guibourdenche,, M.

    1988 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    doi: 10.1093/jac/22.Supplement_B.53pmid: 3141349

    Abstract This in-vitro study of susceptibility to spiramycin of 103 strains of Branhamella catarrhalis isolated between 1982 and 1987 was performed by evaluation of their MICs. More than 97% of strains remained susceptible with MIC less than or equal to 8 mg/1 (two strains). One strain presented a MIC of 16 mg/1. There were no significant differences of susceptibility to spiramycin between penicillinase-producing and non-producing strains. This content is only available as a PDF. © 1988 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Spiramycin alone and in combination with trimethoprim against Haemophilus influenzae

    Arditi,, Moshe;Yogev,, Ram

    1988 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    doi: 10.1093/jac/22.Supplement_B.57pmid: 3263355

    Abstract Following determination of MICs and MBCs of spiramycin and trimethoprim by the broth microdilution method for 16 typable (including 13 type b) and 15 nontypable H. influenzae isolates, bactericidal synergy was tested by the chequerboard method and the time-kill curve methods. Nineteen (13 typable and six nontypable) of 31 strains demonstrated synergy by the chequerboard method. Ten strains showed indifference, and two manifested antagonism. In contrast, 12/13 strains tested by the time-kill method showed synergy and 1/13 demonstrated indifference. Of note was the finding that seven isolates that showed indifference by chequerboard method (three typable, four nontypable) manifested synergism by the kill-curve method. Of the two nontypable strains showing antagonism by chequerboard, one manifested synergy and the other indifference by the time-kill method. Our studies show that in-vitro synergy between spiramycin and trimethoprim against H. influenzae strains is frequently demonstrable. In-vivo studies may be helpful in confirming these in-vitro observations. This content is only available as a PDF. © 1988 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Efficacy of spiramycin on experimental airborne legionellosis in guinea

    Nowicki,, M.;Paucod, J., C.;Bornstein,, N.;Isoard,, P.;Fleurette,, J.

    1988 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    doi: 10.1093/jac/22.Supplement_B.63pmid: 3182447

    Abstract The effect of preventive and curative spiramycin therapy was studied in guinea pigs infected by aerosol with the experimental model previously tested. The infectious aerosol was obtained from a virulent strain of Legionella pneumophila (Philadelphia ATCC 33 152). Male guinea pigs (Dunkin-Hartley) weighing 250–300 g were exposed for 30 min to an aerosol of 1 or 10 LD50 (103 or 104 viable inhaled organisms). Spiramycin was administered intraperitoneally (150 mg/kg/day) 18 h after infection for five days for curative therapy; for preventive therapy it was administered on the day before and on the day of aerosol administration (10 LD50). The animals were observed during seven days for weight and temperature and 28 days for survival; bacterial (lungs, spleen) and serological tests were performed. Spiramycin levels (lungs, serum) were evaluated during treatment by a microbiological method. The survival rate in the treated guinea pigs after inhalation of 1 LD50 was 100%. For the 10 LD50 aerosol, curative and preventive therapy gave a survival rate of 87·5%; these results are significant when compared with results of non-treated animals, P < 0·05. Spiramycin merits further study in experimental and human legionellosis. This content is only available as a PDF. © 1988 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Comparison of spiramycin and erythromycin in the treatment of experimental guinea pig legionellosis

    Doumon,, Eric;Rajagopalan,, Premavathy

    1988 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    doi: 10.1093/jac/22.Supplement_B.69pmid: 3182448

    Abstract Spiramycin was compared with erythromycin in a guinea pig model of severe Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 infection. Male guinea pigs weighing 264–321 g were infected by the intraperitioneal route with l·2 × 107 virulent L. pneumophila serogroup 1 . Forty eight h after infection, animals that had lost ⩾ 9% of their body weight were randomly assigned to receive 48, 54 and 72 h after infection intraperitoneal injections of (1) distilled water (n = 20), (2) erythromycin lactobionate, 30 mg/kg per injection, (n = 22) or (3) the injectable form of spiramycin adipate, 30 mg/kg per injection (n = 22). Animals were observed daily for 15 days. All infected animals treated with distilled water died within four days of infection. Of the 22 animals treated with spiramycin, 10 (45·5%) died, and of the 22 animals treated with erythromycin, 11 (50·0%) died of disseminated L. pneumophila infection. In this animal model of very severe L. pneumophila infection, the injectable forms of erythromycin and of spiramycin gave similar results. Spiramycin should therefore be considered for the treatment of Legionnaires' disease in man. This content is only available as a PDF. © 1988 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

    Showing 1 to 10 of 32 Articles

    Previous1234Next
    Articles per page
    Browse All Journals

    Related Journals:

    BMC Infectious DiseasesCurrent Infectious Disease ReportsCurrent Fungal Infection ReportsInfectious Disease Reports
    Issue 1 (Jan)
    Issue 3 (Mar)
    Issue 2 (Feb)
    Issue 1 (Jan)