Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1977 Apr;11(4):695-7.
doi: 10.1128/AAC.11.4.695.

Susceptibility of Clostridium perfringens isolated from human infections to twenty antibiotics

Comparative Study

Susceptibility of Clostridium perfringens isolated from human infections to twenty antibiotics

J D Schwartzman et al. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1977 Apr.

Abstract

The proper choice of antibiotic for Clostridium perfringens infections in patients allergic to penicillin is not clear; the usual recommendations and recent in vitro studies disagree. We tested the susceptibility of 57 strains of C. perfringens to eight penicillins, seven cephalosporins, two tetracyclines, clindamycin, chloramphenicol, and rifampin by the agar dilution method. All strains were inhibited by (per milliliter) 4 mug or less of any of the penicillins, chloramphenicol, or clindamycin and 8 mug or less of any of the cephalosporins tested. Penicillin G and amoxicillin inhibited all strains at 0.12 mug or less per ml. Only 54% of the strains were inhibited by 1 mug of tetracycline per ml. Penicillin G remains the drug of first choice for infections with C. perfringens; it need not be added to a regimen containing a penicillinase-resistant penicillin given parenterally in high doses. The cephalosporins should be considered as alternative drugs for penicillin-allergic patients. Clindamycin and chloramphenicol are also effective. Tetracyclines cannot be depended upon in clostridial infections without in vitro testing, which is impracticable for initial empirical therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Mayo Clin Proc. 1976 Apr;51(4):237-50 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 1958 Dec 25;259(26):1255-8 - PubMed
    1. Scand J Infect Dis. 1975;7(2):127-34 - PubMed
    1. Lancet. 1968 Mar 30;1(7544):660-1 - PubMed
    1. Br Med J. 1969 Sep 20;3(5672):671-6 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources