Comparison of the in vitro activities of rifapentine and rifampicin against Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex

• Published in: Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy 2000-10, Vol.46 (4), p.571-576
• Main Authors: Bemer-Melchior, Pascale, Bryskier, André, Drugeon, Henri B.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agar; Animals; Antibacterial agents; Antibiotics, Antitubercular - pharmacology; Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents; Biological and medical sciences; Cattle; Culture Media; Medical sciences; Microbial Sensitivity Tests - methods; Mycobacterium bovis - drug effects; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Mycobacterium tuberculosis - drug effects; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Radiometry - methods; Reproducibility of Results; Rifampin - analogs & derivatives; Rifampin - pharmacology; rifapentine
• ISSN: 0305-7453; 1460-2091
• DOI: 10.1093/jac/46.4.571

The in vitro activity of rifapentine for 44 clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex was compared with that of rifampicin using the Bactec radiometric method and the absolute concentration method for susceptibility testing. Twenty-nine M. tuberculosis, 11 Mycobacterium bovis and four Mycobacterium africanum strains were studied. Control tests showed that rifapentine was stable for 14 days in 7H9 broth and for 3 weeks in 7H10 agar medium. The 44 M. tuberculosis complex strains were more susceptible to rifapentine than to rifampicin, irrespective of the testing method. In the radiometric system, the MIC50 and MIC90 of rifapentine for M. tuberculosis complex strains were one or two two-fold dilutions lower than those of rifampicin (0.06–0.125 mg/L versus 0.25 mg/L, respectively). By the absolute concentration method, the MIC50 and MIC90 of rifapentine for M. tuberculosis complex strains were two two-fold dilutions lower than those of rifampicin (0.125–0.25 mg/L versus 0.5–1 mg/L, respectively). The MIC90 of rifapentine for the 44 M. tuberculosis complex strains was always 0.25 mg/L, irrespective of the method used, but the radiometric method was more reliable and more reproducible than the agar 7H10 method.