Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The in vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities of the new rifamycin derivatives KRM-1648 and KRM-1657 were compared with those of rifampin. Rifabutin, ciprofloxacin, and clarithromycin were also tested for reference. The respective MICs of KRM-1648 and KRM-1657 for 90% of the strains tested (MIC90S) were 0.016 and 0.0078 microgram/ml, respectively, for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, 0.016 and 0.0039 microgram/ml, respectively, for methicillin-resistant S. aureus, and 0.0625 and 0.016 microgram/ml, respectively, for methicillin- and quinolone-resistant S. aureus. These MIC90S of KRM-1657 were equal to or 2- to 64-fold lower than those of rifampin. KRM-1648 and KRM-1657 with MIC90S of between 0.002 and 0.078 microgram/ml were 2- to 128-fold more active than rifampin against Staphylococcus epidermidis and Streptococcus species, including Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes. The MIC90S of KRM-1657 for Haemophilus influenzae and Neisseria gonorrhoeae were 0.25 and 0.1 microgram/ml, respectively; KRM-1657 was almost as active as rifampin and was 8- to 16-fold more active than KRM-1648 against these strains. The frequency of occurrence of spontaneous mutations to resistance to KRM-1648 and KRM-1657 was equal to that to rifampin. Against systemic infection with S. aureus in mice, the efficacies of KRM-1648 and KRM-1657 were comparable to that of rifampin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fujii et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: