A C M Veloo1, H Bahar Tokman2, H Jean-Pierre3, Y Dumont3, S Jeverica4, R Lienhard5, A Novak6, A Rodloff7, V Rotimi8, I Wybo9, E Nagy10. 1. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Groningen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: a.c.m.veloo@umcg.nl. 2. Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Department of Medical Microbiology, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Laboratoire de Bactériologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier, Montpellier, France; MIVEGEC, IRD, CNRS, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 4. Institute for Microbiology and Immunology, Medical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 5. Analyses et Diagnostics Médicaux (ADMed) Microbiologie, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland. 6. University Hospital Center of Split, University of Split, School of Medicine, Split, Croatia. 7. Institute for Medical Microbiology and Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases, Leipzig University Hospital, Leipzig, Germany. 8. Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait. 9. Department of Microbiology and Infection Control, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium. 10. Institute of Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studies on the antimicrobial susceptibility profile of anaerobic bacteria are underrepresented in the literature. Within this study we aim to give an extensive overview of the differences in antimicrobial susceptibility profiles between different European and surrounding countries. METHODS: Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) data of different antibiotics were collected from 10 participating laboratories, representing an equal number of countries. All MIC's were determined using Etest, according to the protocol used by the participating laboratory. Anaerobic genera represented by at least 10 clinical isolates were included in the study. RESULTS: Each country tested different antibiotics, sometimes depending on the kind of infection and/or the anaerobic species isolated. All countries tested clindamycin and metronidazole. Resistance rates differed remarkably between the different countries. Especially in Kuwait, resistance was high for all tested antibiotics. Unexpected metronidazole resistance was observed for Finegoldia magna isolates, Peptoniphilus isolates and Eggerthella lenta isolates. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the extensive differences in antimicrobial susceptibility profile of anaerobic bacteria isolated within different countries, we strongly recommend to perform this kind of study on a regular basis.
OBJECTIVES: Studies on the antimicrobial susceptibility profile of anaerobic bacteria are underrepresented in the literature. Within this study we aim to give an extensive overview of the differences in antimicrobial susceptibility profiles between different European and surrounding countries. METHODS: Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) data of different antibiotics were collected from 10 participating laboratories, representing an equal number of countries. All MIC's were determined using Etest, according to the protocol used by the participating laboratory. Anaerobic genera represented by at least 10 clinical isolates were included in the study. RESULTS: Each country tested different antibiotics, sometimes depending on the kind of infection and/or the anaerobic species isolated. All countries tested clindamycin and metronidazole. Resistance rates differed remarkably between the different countries. Especially in Kuwait, resistance was high for all tested antibiotics. Unexpected metronidazole resistance was observed for Finegoldia magna isolates, Peptoniphilus isolates and Eggerthella lenta isolates. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the extensive differences in antimicrobial susceptibility profile of anaerobic bacteria isolated within different countries, we strongly recommend to perform this kind of study on a regular basis.