Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:53:04.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Azithromycin and Clarithromycin Overview and Comparison With Erythromycin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

W. Michael Scheld ,
Marc S. Whitman  and
Allan R. Tunkel
W. Michael Scheld
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine (Infectious Diseases), The Medical College of Annsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Marc S. Whitman
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine (Infectious Diseases), The Medical College of Annsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Allan R. Tunkel*
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine (Infectious Diseases), The Medical College of Annsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
*
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, The Medical College of Pennsylvania, 3300 Henry Avenue, Philadephia, PA 19129
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Macrolides currently account for 10% to 15% of the worldwide oral antibiotic market.' Erythromycin, the first macrolide antibiotic, was discovered in 1952 from a strain of Streptomyces erythreus obtained from soil samples in the Phillipines. Originally, erythromycin was marketed as an alternative to penicillin because of its activity against gram-positive organisms such as staphylococci, pneumococci, and streptococci. Subsequently, its clinical use broadened to include species of Mycoplasma, Legionella, Campylobacter, and Chlamydia. Although several other macrolides have been marketed in countries other than the United States, they have failed to achieve erythromycin's widespread use. Unfortunately, erythromycin suffers from several drawbacks, including gastrointestinal side effects, a short serum elimination half-life, and only borderline in vitro activity against common gram-negative respiratory pathogens such as Haemophilus influenzae.

Type
Clinical Pharmacology of Antibiotics
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 13 , Issue 6 , June 1992 , pp. 357 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Kirst, HA. New macrolides: expanded horizons for an old class of antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;28:787–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Haight, TH, Finland, M. The antibacterial action of erythromycin. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1952;81:175–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Mcguire, JM, Bunch, RL, Anderson, RC, et al. Iliocytin a new antibiotic. Antibiot Chemother. 1952;2:281–283.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Wise, R. Macrolide progress. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;26:56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Kurath, P, Jones, PH. Egan, RS, Perun, TJ. Acid degradation of erythromycin A and erythromycin B. Experientia. 1971;27:362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Fiese, EF, Steffen, SH. Comparison of the acid stability of azithromycin and erythromycin A. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990;25(suppl A):39–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Kirst, HA, Side, GD. New directions for macrolide antibiotics: structural modifications and in vitro activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33:1413–1418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Davey, P, Pechère, J-C, Speller, D. Spiramycin reassessed. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988;22(suppl B):1–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Wise, R. The development of macrolides and related compounds. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989;23:299–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Nord, CE, Lindmark, A, Persson, I. Comparative antimicrobial activity of the new macrolide flurithromycin against respiratory pathogens. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988;7:71–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Neu, HC. Roxithromycin-an overview. Br J Clin Pract. 1988;42(suppl 55):1–3.Google Scholar
12. Morimoto, S, Takahashi, Y, Watanabe, Y, Omura, S. Chemical modification of erythromycin. I. Synthesis and antibacterial activity of 6-O-methylerythromycin A. J Antibiot 1984;37:187–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Bright, GM, Nagel, AA, Bordner, J, et al. Synthesis, in vitro and in vivo activity of novel 9-deoxo-9a-aza-9a-homoerythromycin A derivatives; a new class of antibiotics, the azalides. J Antibiot. 1988;41:1029–1047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Brisson-No&l, A, Trieu-Cuot, P, Courvalin, I? Mechanism of action of spiramycin and other macrolides. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988;22(suppl B):13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Weisblum, B. Inducible resistance to macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramin type B antibiotics: the resistance phenotype, its biological diversity, and structural elements that regulate expression-a review. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985:16(suppl A):63–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Menninger, JR. Functional consequences of binding macrolides to ribosomes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1985;16(suppl A):23–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Retsema, J, Girard, A, Schelky, W, et al. Spectrum and mode of action of azithromycin (CP-62,993), a new 15-membered-ring macrolide with improved potency against gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987;31:1939–1947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Eady, EA, Ross, JI, C&e, JH. Multiple mechanisms of erythromycin resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;26:461–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Foster, TJ. Plasm&determined resistance to antimicrobial drugs and toxic metal ions in bacteria. Microbiol Rev. 1983;47:361–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Femandes, PB, Baker, WR, Freiberg, LA, Hardy, DJ, McDonald, EJ. New macrolides active against Streptococcus pyogenes with inducible or constitutive type of macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33:78–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Arthur, M, Andremont, A, Courvalin, P. Distribution of erythromycin esterase and rRNA methylase genes in members of the family Enterobacteriaceae highly resistant to erythromycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987;31:404–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Foulds, G, Shepard, RM, Johnson, RB. The pharmacokinetics of azithromycin in human serum and tissues. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;25(suppl A):73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Neu, HC. The development of macrolides: clarithromycin in perspective. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;27(suppl A):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Hopkins, S. Clinical toleration and safety of azithromycin. Am J Med. 1991;91(suppl 3A):40–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Guay, DRP. Pharmacokinetics of new macrolides. Infect Med. 1992;9(suppl A):31–38.Google Scholar
26. Kirst, HA, Sides, GD. New directions for macrolide antibiotics: pharmacokinetics and clinical efficacy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33:1419–1422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Washington, JA. Erythromycin: a microbial and clinical perspective after 30 years of clinical use (first of two parts). Mayo Clin Proc. 1985;60:189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Hardy, DJ, Guay, DRP, Jones, RN. Clarithromycin, a unique macrolide. A pharmacokinetic, microbiologic, and clinical perspective. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992;15:39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Schentag, JJ, Ballow, CH Tissue-directed pharmacokinetics. Am J Med. 1991;91(suppl. 3A):5–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Gladue, RP, Bright, GM, Isaacson, RE, Newborg, ME In vitro and in vivo uptake of azithromycin (CP-62,993) by phagocytic cells: possible mechanism of delivery and release at sites of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33:277–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Gladue, RP, Snider, ME. Intracellular accumulation of azithromycin by cultured human fibroblasts. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990;34:1056–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Anderson, R, Joone, G, van Rensburg, EJ. An in-vitro evaluation of the cellular uptake and intraphagocytic bioactivity of clarithromycin (A-56268. TE-031). a new macrolide antimicrobial agent. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988;22:923–933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Fraschini, F, Scaglione, F, Pintucci, G, Maccarinelli, G, Dugnani, S. Demartini, G. The diffusion of clarithromycin and roxithromycin into nasal mucosa, tonsil and lung in humans. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;27(suppl A):61–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Ferrero, JL, Bopp, BA, Marsh, KC, et al. Metabolism and disposition of clarithromycin in man. Drug Metab Dispos. 1990;18:441–446.Google ScholarPubMed
35. Hanson, CW, Bailer, R, Gade, E, Rode, RA, Fernandes, PB. Regression analysis, proposed interpretive zone standards, and quality control guidelines for a new macrolide antimicrobial agent, A-56268 (TE-031). J Clin Microbiol. 1987;25:1079–1082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Barry, AL, Jones, RN. Interpretative criteria for the agar diffusion susceptibility test with azithromycin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988;22:637–641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Barry, AL, Jones, RN, Thornsberry, C. In vitro activities of azithromycin (CP-62.993). clarithromycin (A-56268: TE-031). erythromycin, roxithromycin, and clindamycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32:752–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Hardy, DJ, Hensey, DM, Beyer, JM, Vojtko, C, McDonald, EJ, Fernandes, PB. Comparative in vitro activities of new 14, 15 and 16-membered macrolides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32:1710–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Pruul, H, McDonald, PJ. Potentiation of antibacterial activity of azithromycin and other macrolides by normal human serum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992;36:10–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Chin, N-X, Neu, NM, Labthavikul, P, Saha, G, Neu, HC. Activity of A-56268 compared with that of erythromycin and other oral agents against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987;31:463–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Eliopoulos, GM, Reiszner, E, Ferraro, MJ, Moellering, RC. Comparative in-vitro activity of A-56268 (TE-031), a new macrolide antibiotic. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988;21:671–675.Google Scholar
42. Jansson, L, Kalin, M. Comparative in vitro activity of A-56268 against respiratory tract pathogens. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1987;6:494–496.Google ScholarPubMed
43. Fernandes, PB, Bailer, R, Swanson, R, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of A-56268 (TE-031), a new macrolide. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986;30:865–873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Fernandes, PB, Romer, N, Rode, RA, Freiberg, LA. Bioassay for A-56268 (TE-031) and identification of its major metabolite, 14-hydroxy-6-O-methylerythromycin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988;7:73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Dabemat, H, Delmas, C, Seguy, M, Fourtillan, JB, Girault, J, Lareng, MB. The activity of clarithromycin and its 14-hydroxy metabolite against Haemophilus influenzae, determined by in-vitro and serum bactericidal tests. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;21(suppl A):19–30.Google Scholar
46. Hardy, DJ, Swanson, RN, Rode, RA, Marsh, K, Shipkowitz, NL, Clement, JJ. Enhancement of the in vitro and in vivo activities of clarithromycin against Haemophilus influenzae by 14-hydroxy-clarithromycin, its major membolite in humans. Antimicmb Agents Chemother. 1990;34:1407–1413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Rylander, M. Hallander, HO. In vitro comparison of the activity of doxycycline, tetracycline, erythromycin and a new macrolide, CP 62,993, against Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Mycoplasma hominis and Ureaplasma urealyticum . Scand J Infect Dis. 1988;(suppl 53):12–17.Google Scholar
48. Cassell, GH, Dmec, J, Waites, KB, et al. Efficacy of clarithromycin against Mycoplasma pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;27(suppl A):47–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49. Ridgeway, GL, Mumtaz, G, Fenelon, L. The in vitro activity of clarithromycin and other macrolides against the type strain of Chlamydia pneumoniae (TWAR). J Antimicrob Chemother 1991;27(suppl A):43–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Icuo, CC, Grayston, JT. In vitro drug susceptibility of Chlamydia sp. strain TWAR . Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32:257–258.Google Scholar
51. Chirgwin, K, Roblin, PM, Hammerschlag, MR In vitro susceptibilities of Chlamydiapneumoniae (Chlamydiasp. strain TWAR). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33:1634–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Jones, RN, Erwin, ME, Barrett, MS. In vitro activity of clarithromycin (TE-031, A-56268) and 14-OH clarithromycin alone and in combination against Legionella species. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1990;9:846–848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53. Neu, HC, Chin, N-X, Saha, G, Labthavikul, l? Comparative in vitro activity of the new oral macrolide azithromycin. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988;7:541–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54. Frosolono, M, Singh, KV, Murray, BE. In vitro activity of azithromycin against enteric pathogens. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31 st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:120.Google Scholar
55. Benson, CA, Segreti, J, Beaudette, FE, et al. In vitro activity of A-56268 (TE-031), a new macrolide, compared with that of erythromycin and clindamycin against selected gram-positive and gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987;31:328–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56. Dangor, Y, Miller, SD, Exposto, F, Da, L, Koomhof, HJ. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of Southern African isolates of Haemophilus ducreyi. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32:1458–1460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57. Slaney, L, Chubb, H, Ronald, A, Brunham, R. In-vitro activity of azithromycin, erythromycin, ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin against Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Haemophilus ducreyi, and Chlamydia trachomatis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;25(suppl A):1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58. Segreti, J, Kessler, H, Kapell, KS, Trenholme, GM. In vitro activity of A56268 (TE-031) and four other antimicrobial agents against Chlamydia trachoma tis . An timicrob Agents Chemother. 1987;31:100–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59. Scieux, C, Bianchi, B, Chappey, I, Perol, Y. In-vitro activity of azithromycin against Chlamydia trachomatis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;25(suppl A):7–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60. Lukehart, SA, Fohn, MJ, Baker-Zander, SA. Efficacy of azithromycin for therapy of active syphilis in the rabbit model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;25(suppl A):91–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61. Waites, KB. Cassell, GH. Canupp, KC. Fernandes, PB. In vitro susceptibilities of mycoplasmas and ureaplasmas to new macrolides and aryl-fluoroquinolones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32:1500–1502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62. Preac-Mursic, V, Wilske, B, Schierz, G, Suss, E, Gross, B. Comparative antimicrobial activity of the new macrolides against Borreba burgdorferi . Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1989;8:651–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63. Chang, HR, Pechère, J-C. In vitro effects of four macrolides (roxithromycin, spiramycin, azithromycin [CP-62,993], and A-56268) on Toxoplasma gondii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32:524–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64. Araujo, FG, Guptill, DR, Remington, JS. Azithromycin, a macrolide antibiotic with potent activity against Toxoplasma gondii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32:755–757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65. Chang, HR, Rudareanu, FC, Pechère, J-C. Activity of A-56268 (TE-031). a new macrolide. against Toxoplasma gondii in mice. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988;32:359–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66. Brown, BA, Wallace, RJ, Onyi, GO, De Rosas, V, Wallace, RJ. Activities of four macrolides, including clarithromycin, against Mycobacterium fortuitum, Mycobacterium chelonae, and M chelonae-like organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992;36:180–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67. Brown, ST, Edwards, FF, Bernard, FM, Armstrong, D. Inhibition of Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) by single agents and combinations. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:211.Google Scholar
68. Fernandes, PB, Hardy, DJ, McDaniel, D, Hanson, CW, Swanson, RN. In vitro and in vivo activities of clarithromycin against Mycobacterium avium . Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33:1531–1534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69. Rastogi, N, Labtousse, V. Extracellular and intracellular activities of clarithromycin used alone and in association with ethambutol and rifampin against Mycobacterium avium complex. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991;35:462–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
70. Yajko, DM, Nassos, PS, Sanders, CA, Gonzalez, PC, Hadley, WK. Comparison of the intracellular activities of erythromycin and clarithromycin against Mycobacterium avium complex. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology;1991:211.Google Scholar
71. Inderlied, CB, Kolonoski, PT, Wu, M, Young, LS. In vitro and in vivo activity of azithromycin (CP-62,993) against Mycobacterium avium complex. J Infect Dis. 1989;159:994–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72. Berlin, OGW. Young, LS. Floyd-Reising, SA. Bruckner, DA Comparative'in vitro activity of the new macrolide A-56268 against mycobacteria. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1987;6:486–487.Google ScholarPubMed
73. Neu, HC. Clinical microbiology of azithromycin. Am J Med. 1991;91(suppl 3A):12–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74. Hooton, TM. A comparison of azithromycin and penicillin V for the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis. Am J Med. 1991;91(suppl 3A):23–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
75. Levenstein, JH. Clarithromycin versus penicillin in the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;27(suppl A):67–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
76. Bachand, RT. A comparative study of clarithromycin and penicillin VK in the treatment of outpatients with streptococcal pharyngitis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;27(suppl A):75–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
77. Janousky, S, Northcutt, VJ, Craft, JC. Comparative safety and efficacy of clarithromycin and penicillin V suspensions in the treatment of children with streptococcal pharyngitis. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society of Microbiology;1991:244.Google Scholar
78. Still, JG, Hubbard, WC, Poole, JM, Scheaffer, CI. Randomized comparison of clarithromycin and penicillin V suspensions in the treatment of children with streptococcal pharyngitis and/or tonsillitis. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology;l991:244.Google Scholar
79. Casiano, RR. Azithromycin and amoxicillin in the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis. Am J Med. 1991;91(suppl 3A):27–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
80. Felstead, SJ, Daniel, R. Short-course treatment of sinusitis and upper respiratory tract infections with azithromycin: a comparison with erythromycin and amoxycillin. J Intern Med Res. 1991;19:363–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
81. Karma, P, Pukander, J, Penttilä, M, et al. The comparative efficacy and safety of clarithromycin and amoxycillin in the treatment of outpatients with acute maxillary sinusitis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;27(suppl A):83–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
82. Balmes, PB, Clerc, G, DuPont, B, Labram, C, Pariente, R, Poirier, R. Comparative study of azithromycin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991;10:437–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
83. Daniel, R. Simplified treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infection with azithromycin: a comparison with erythromycin and amoxycillin. J Intern Med Res. 1991;19:373–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
84. Bachand, RT. Comparative study of clarithromycin and ampicillin in the treatment of patients with acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;27(suppl A):91–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
85. Aldons, PM. A comparison of clarithromycin with ampicillin in the treatment of outpatients with acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. I Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;27(suppl A):101–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
86. Dark, D. Multicenter evaluation of azithromycin and cefaclor in acute lower respiratory infections. Am J Med. 1991;91(suppl 3A):31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
87. Poirier, R. Comparative study of clarithromycin and roxithromycin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;27(suppl A):109–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
88. Anderson, G, Esmonde, TS, Coles, S, Macklin, J, Carnegie, C. A comparative safety and efficacy study of clarithromycin and erythromycin stearate in community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;27(suppl A):117–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
89. Schönwald, S, Gunjaca, M, Kolacny-Babic, L, Car, V, Gosev, M. Comparison of azithromycin and erythromycin in the treatment of a typical pneumonias. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;25(suppl A):123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
90. Mallory, SB. Azithromycin compared with cephalexin in the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Am J Med. 1991;91(suppl 3A):36–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
91. Lassus, A. Comparative studies of azithromycin in skin and soft-tissue infections and sexually transmitted infections by Neisseria and Chlamydia species. J Antimicrob Chemother: 1990;25(suppl A):115–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
92. Stamm, WE. Azithromycin in the treatment of uncomplicated genital chlamydial infections. Am J Med. 1991;91(suppl 3A):19–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
93. Steingrimsson, O, Olafsson, JH, Thorarinsson, H, Ryan, RW, Johnson, RB, Tilton, RC. Azithromycin in the treatment of sexually transmitted disease. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;25(suppl A):109–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
94. Hammerschlag, MR, Golden, N, Gelling, M, Aras, Z, Dumornay, W, Roblin, I? Single dose azithromycin for the treatment of genital chlamydial infection in adolescent women. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:111.Google Scholar
95. Martin, DH, Mmczkowski, TF, Dalu, ZA, et al. A multicenter, randomized trial of single dose azithromycin vs. multiple doxycycline for Chlamydia trachomatis genital tract infection. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:111.Google Scholar
96. Handsfield, HH. Sienal, NA. Verdon, MS Single-dose azithromycin vs. ceftriaxone for treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:112.Google Scholar
97. Ji, B, Lounis, N, Truffot-Pernot, C, et al. Susceptibility of the immunocompetent, beige and nude mice to Mycobacterium avium infection and response to clarithromycin. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:147.Google Scholar
98. Klemens, SP, Destefano, MS, Cynanmon, MH. Clarithromycin in combination with other agents against M avium complex (MAC) in beige mice. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:147.Google Scholar
99. Saint-Marc, T, Touraine, JL. Clinical experience with a combination of clarithromycin and clofazamine in the treatment of disseminated M avium infection in AIDS patients. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:138.Google Scholar
100. Dautzenberg, B, Saint-Marc, T, Averous, V, et al. Clarithromycin containing regimens in the treatment of 54 AIDS patients with disseminated Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare infection. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:148.Google Scholar
101. Young, LS, Wiviott, L, Wu, M, Kolonoski, P, Inderlied, CB, Bolan, R. Azithromycin reduces M avium complex (MAC) bacteremia and relieves its symptoms in patients with AIDS In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:148.Google Scholar
102. Dautzenberg, B, Truffot, C, Leegris, S, et al. Activity of clarithromycin against Mycobacterium avium infection in patients with the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991;144:564–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
103. Gelber, RH, Siu, P, Tsang, M, Murray, LP. Activities of various macrolide antibiotics against Mycobacterium leprae infection in mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991;35:760–763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
104. Baohong, JI, Perani, EG, Grosset, JH. Effectiveness of clarithromycin and minocycline alone and in combination against experimental Mycobacterium leprae infection in mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991;35:579–581.Google Scholar
105. Jamet, P, Ji, B, Bobin, P, Grosset, JH. Powerful bactericidal activities of clarithromycin and/or minocycline against M leprae in man. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:260.Google Scholar
106. Wallace, RJ. Future uses of macrolides. Infect Med. 1992;9(suppl A):21–30.Google Scholar
107. Fernandez-Martin, J, Leport, C, Morlat, P, Meyohas, MC, Chauvin, JP, Vilde, JL. Pyrimethamine-clarithromycin combination for therapy of acute Toxoplasma encephalitis in patients with AIDS. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991;35:2049–2052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
108. Graham, DY, Opekun, AR, Klein, PD. Clarithromycin for the eradication of H pylon'. In: Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1991:258.Google Scholar
109. Glupczynski, Y, Burette, A. Failure of azithromycin to eradicate Campylobacter pylori from the stomach because of acquired resistance during treatment. Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;85:98–99.Google ScholarPubMed