Literature DB >> 2327757

Comparison of in vitro antibiograms of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates: differences in resistance rates in two institutions because of differences in susceptibility testing methodology.

K E Aldridge1, H M Wexler, C V Sanders, S M Finegold.   

Abstract

With 120 clinical isolates of the Bacteroides fragilis group, a comparison of rates of resistance to selected antimicrobial agents by using two susceptibility tests was performed in two medical institutions. The broth microdilution method produced MICs significantly lower than those determined by the agar dilution method. With ceftizoxime and cefoxitin, 88 and 18%, respectively, of the MICs were greater than or equal to 2 twofold dilutions apart. These differences in MIC results produced major interpretive discrepancies for ceftizoxime and cefoxitin, whereas no significant differences in resistance rates were noted for clindamycin and metronidazole.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2327757      PMCID: PMC171547          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.34.1.179

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother        ISSN: 0066-4804            Impact factor:   5.191


  15 in total

Review 1.  Antimicrobial resistance in Bacteroides.

Authors:  H M Wexler; S M Finegold
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 5.790

2.  Cefoxitin for treatment of infections due to anaerobic bacteria.

Authors:  B D Kirby; D F Busch; D M Citron; S M Finegold
Journal:  Rev Infect Dis       Date:  1979 Jan-Feb

3.  Comparative in vitro activities of third-generation cephalosporins.

Authors:  R J Fass
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1983-09

4.  Survey of anaerobic susceptibility patterns in Canada.

Authors:  A M Bourgault; G K Harding; J A Smith; G B Horsman; T J Marrie; F Lamothe
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria from several French hospitals to three major antibiotics.

Authors:  L Dubreuil; J Devos; C Neut; C Romond
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Nationwide study of the susceptibility of the Bacteroides fragilis group in the United States.

Authors:  F P Tally; G J Cuchural; N V Jacobus; S L Gorbach; K Aldridge; T Cleary; S M Finegold; G Hill; P Iannini; J P O'Keefe
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1985-11       Impact factor: 5.191

7.  Antibiotic- and method-dependent variation in susceptibility testing results of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates.

Authors:  K E Aldridge; C V Sanders
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Ceftizoxime and cefoxitin susceptibility testing against anaerobic bacteria: comparison of results from three NCCLS methods and quality control recommendations for the reference agar dilution procedure.

Authors:  R N Jones; A L Barry; P C Fuchs; S D Allen
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 2.803

9.  Comparison of the activities of penicillin G and new beta-lactam antibiotics against clinical isolates of Bacteroides species.

Authors:  K E Aldridge; C V Sanders; A Janney; S Faro; R L Marier
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Cefoxitin: clinical evaluation in thirty-eight patients.

Authors:  P N Heseltine; D F Busch; R D Meyer; S M Finegold
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 5.191

View more
  11 in total

1.  Antibiotic sensitivity of the Bacteroides fragilis group in Europe. European Study Group.

Authors:  I Phillips; A King; C E Nord; B Hoffstedt
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.267

2.  Susceptibilities of members of the Bacteroides fragilis group to 11 antimicrobial agents.

Authors:  R Horn; J Lavallée; H G Robson
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  National hospital survey of anaerobic culture and susceptibility testing methods: results and recommendations for improvement.

Authors:  E J Goldstein; D M Citron; R J Goldman
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 4.  Susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria: myth, magic, or method?

Authors:  H M Wexler
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 26.132

Review 5.  Current antimicrobial therapy of anaerobic infections.

Authors:  C V Sanders; K E Aldridge
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 3.267

6.  Containing cefoxitin costs through a program to curtail use in surgical prophylaxis.

Authors:  G Taylor; E Blondel-Hill; P Kibsey; E Friesen; R Tisdell; W Vaudry
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis       Date:  1993-09

7.  Comparative in vitro activities of a new quinolone, WIN 57273, and piperacillin plus tazobactam against anaerobic bacteria.

Authors:  R A Venezia; D M Yocum; E M Robbiano; R M Echols
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  In vitro activities of cefminox against anaerobic bacteria compared with those of nine other compounds.

Authors:  D B Hoellman; S K Spangler; M R Jacobs; P C Appelbaum
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Comparison of the inoculum effect of cefoxitin and other cephalosporins and of beta-lactamase inhibitors and their penicillin-derived components on the Bacteroides fragilis group.

Authors:  E J Goldstein; D M Citron; C E Cherubin
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Comparative study of pharmacokinetics and serum bactericidal activity of ceftizoxime and cefotaxime.

Authors:  F Vallée; M LeBel
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 5.191

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.