Comparative Evaluation of Ceftriaxone Efficacy Against Escherichia coli: A Study of Three Commercial Brands Using Minimal Inhibitory Concentration

Ibrahim Egfier; Abdalla M Albakosh; Esraa Miloud Al haleeb; Esraa Hussain Emzika; Amna H Alrtail

doi:10.64516/d5x7jb18

Authors

Ibrahim Egfier Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Alasmarya Islamic University, Zliten, Libya. Author
Abdalla M Albakosh Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alasmarya Islamic University, Zliten, Libya Author
Esraa Miloud Al haleeb Microbiology Unit, Laboratory Medicine, Zliten Medical Center, Zliten, Libya Author
Esraa Hussain Emzika Microbiology Unit, Laboratory Medicine, Zliten Medical Center, Zliten, Libya Author
Amna H Alrtail Microbiology Unit, Laboratory Medicine, Zliten Medical Center, Zliten, Libya Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64516/d5x7jb18

Keywords:

E. coli, MIC, ceftriaxone, UTI, ENT infections

Abstract

Objective: This study compares the efficacy of three commercially available ceftriaxone brands in Libya (from Tunisia, Spain, and India) against Escherichia coli using minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) assays.

Methods: A susceptible strain of E. coli was tested following CLSI protocols. MIC values were determined using serial two-fold dilutions of ceftriaxone in Mueller-Hinton broth. Experiments were conducted in triplicate under controlled laboratory conditions.
Results: The Spanish and Indian brands exhibited lower MIC values (0.1172–0.2344 mcg/mL), indicating higher efficacy, while the Tunisian brand showed reduced efficacy with MIC values (2.7581 mcg/mL) exceeding standard benchmarks.

Conclusions: These findings underscore the variability in the efficacy of ceftriaxone brands, emphasizing the need for stringent quality control and standardized testing.

References

1. Brogden, R. N., & Ward, A. (1988). Ceftriaxone: a reappraisal of its antibacterial activity and

pharmacokinetic properties, and an update on its therapeutic use with particular reference to once-daily administration. Drugs, 35(6), 604-645.

2. Dezfulian, M., Bitar, R. A., & Bartlett, J. G. (1993). Comparative Efficacy of Ceftriaxone in Experimental Infections Involving Bacteroides fragilis and Escherichia coli. Chemotherapy, 39(5), 355–360.

3. Katzung, B. G., Masters, S. B., & Trevor, A. J. (2012). Chemotherapeutic drugs. In (12th ed.): McGraw-Hill Medical.

4. Richards, D., Heel, R., Brogden, R., Speight, T., & Avery, G. (1984). Ceftriaxone: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacological properties and therapeutic use. Drugs, 27, 469-527.

5. Shanbhag, T. V., & Shenay, S. (2015). Chemotherapy Pharmacology for Medical Graduates (3rd ed.): Thomson Press India Ltd.

6. Soussy, C. J., Deforges, L., Le Van Thoi, J., Chanal, M., Sirot, D., Acar, J. F., Kitzis, M. D., Thabaut, A., Meyran, M., & Dabernat, H. (1985). Activité in vitro de la ceftriaxone sur les bactéries hospitalières. Résultats d'une étude multicentrique [In vitro activity of ceftriaxone on hospital bacteria. Results of a multicenter study]. Pathologie-biologie, 33(5 Pt 2), 469–472.

7.Thapa, B., & Mahat, K. (2010). In-vitro activity of three brands of ceftriaxone against different clinical isolates. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc, 49(179), 225-227.

8.Tripathi, K. (2019). Antimicrobial drug. In Essential of Medical Pharmacology (8th ed., pp. 838-906): JAYPEE BROTHERS MEDICAL PUBLISHERS.