The distribution of orally administered ampicillin in calves

Acred, P.; Pj, Larkin; Mizen, L

doi:10.1136/vr.79.4.103

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ampicillin is also given orally in neonatal diarrhoea therapy in the calf (Jones, 1974;Rolinson & Stevens, 1961). Studies on the fate of ampicillin in the digestive tract show considerable quantitative variations between individual animals of the same species (calves and pigs) (Acred et al, 1966;Escoula et al, 1982;Larkin, 1972). The presence of ampicillin-resistant (AmpR) organisms in the intestine, whether autochthonous or pathogenic, is likely to be a factor in these variations; both intracellular and extracellular Q-lactamases produced by such organisms may be responsible for in situ degradation of this antibiotic in the digestive tract (Abraham & Chain, 1940;Bakhtiar & Selwyn, 1978;Lacey, 1980).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ampicillin Inactivation in the Caecum of Axenic, Gnotoxenic and Conventional Lambs: Interaction with Resistant or Sensitive Escherichia coli

Coste¹,

Gouet²,

Escoula³

1984

Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fate of orally administered ampicillin was studied in axenic lambs, in gnotoxenic lambs given a complex microflora and a mixture of ampicillin resistant and/or sensitive strains of Escherichia coli, and in conventional lambs. In axenic lambs or animals with a sensitive microflora, antibiotic concentrations of 500-1600 micrograms ml-1 were detected in the intestine, and most of the ampicillin passed through the small intestine and entered the large intestine, within 12-15 h of administration. These antibiotic concentrations were sufficient to decrease the numbers of ampicillin-sensitive E. coli from 10(8)-10(9) bacteria ml-1 to about 10(5)-10(6) bacteria ml-1 by 8 h after ampicillin administration. Second and third doses of antibiotic had no further effect on the bacterial count. Administration of ampicillin to animals hosting ampicillin-resistant E. coli resulted in a significant inactivation of the antibiotic in the intestine. As might be expected there was little reduction in the numbers of these organisms. These results are similar to those observed in conventional lambs hosting resistant E. coli as the dominant colibacillary flora.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ampicillin Inactivation in the Caecum of Axenic, Gnotoxenic and Conventional Lambs: Interaction with Resistant or Sensitive Escherichia coli

Coste¹,

Gouet²,

Escoula³

1984

Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cefuroxime has good stability to β‐lactamases from H. influenzae and M. catarrhalis , and has also been shown to retain bactericidal efficacy against many penicillin‐resistant S. pneumoniae. 6 , 7 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cefuroxime Axetil in the Treatment of Bronchitis: Comparison With Amoxycillin in a Multicentre Study in General Practice Patients

Shah

Turnbull

et al. 1994

Int J Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Cefuroxime axetil 250 mg twice daily and amoxycillin 250 mg three times daily were compared in an investigator‐blind, randomised, parallel group, multicentre study of acute or acute‐on‐chronic bronchitis. The two compounds had broadly similar efficacy. Analysis of patients on an intention‐to‐treat basis 24‐72 hours after completion of the course of study medication showed that amoxycillin afforded clinical cure or improvement in 123/153 (80.4%) of patients and cefuroxime axetil in 109/143 (76.2%). This result was not significantly different, but the amoxycillin cure rate was not sustained and there were significantly more clinical relapses during the 4‐week follow‐up period following the end of treatment. Only 4/68 (5.9%) of patients receiving cefuroxime axetil relapsed and required further treatment, whereas 16/77 (20.8%) of those receiving amoxycillin needed further treatment (P=0.016). These were all patients who had initially responded to treatment and had been adjudged clinically cured or improved. The significant difference in relapse rates suggests that the apparent clinical success with amoxycillin was not sustained. There were no differences between the two treatments in the numbers of patients experiencing adverse events, which were generally mild and transient.

show abstract

Newer Penicillins in Veterinary Practice

1968

Aust Veterinary J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The distribution of orally administered ampicillin in calves

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Ampicillin Inactivation in the Caecum of Axenic, Gnotoxenic and Conventional Lambs: Interaction with Resistant or Sensitive Escherichia coli

Ampicillin Inactivation in the Caecum of Axenic, Gnotoxenic and Conventional Lambs: Interaction with Resistant or Sensitive Escherichia coli

Cefuroxime Axetil in the Treatment of Bronchitis: Comparison With Amoxycillin in a Multicentre Study in General Practice Patients

Newer Penicillins in Veterinary Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About