Mark E Murphy1,2, Eleanor Powell3, Joshua Courter4, Joel E Mortensen5. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 2. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 4. Division of Pharmacy, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 5. Division of Pathology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. Joel.Mortensen@cchmc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral beta-lactam antimicrobials are not routinely tested against Streptococcus pneumoniae due to presumed susceptibility based upon penicillin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing. Currently, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute provides comments to use penicillin MIC ≤0.06 to predict oral cephalosporin susceptibility. However, no guidance is provided when cefotaxime MIC is known, leading to uncertainty with interpretation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate cefotaxime and penicillin MICs and their respective correlation to oral beta-lactam categorical susceptibility patterns. METHODS: 249 S. pneumoniae isolates were identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-ToF) and then tested by broth microdilution method to penicillin, cefotaxime, amoxicillin, cefdinir, cefpodoxime, and cefuroxime. RESULTS: Using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) non-meningitis breakpoints for cefotaxime, 240/249 isolates were classified as susceptible. Of the cefotaxime susceptible isolates, 23% of the isolates are misrepresented as cefdinir susceptible. Amoxicillin correlated well with penicillin MIC breakpoints with only 1 discordant isolate out of 249. CONCLUSION: The correlation between amoxicillin and penicillin creates a very reliable predictor to determine categorical susceptibility. However oral cephalosporins were not well predicted by either penicillin or cefotaxime leading to the possible risk of treatment failures. Caution should be used when transitioning to oral cephalosporins in cefotaxime susceptible isolates, especially with higher cefotaxime MICs.
BACKGROUND: Oral beta-lactam antimicrobials are not routinely tested against Streptococcus pneumoniae due to presumed susceptibility based upon penicillin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing. Currently, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute provides comments to use penicillin MIC ≤0.06 to predict oral cephalosporin susceptibility. However, no guidance is provided when cefotaxime MIC is known, leading to uncertainty with interpretation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate cefotaxime and penicillin MICs and their respective correlation to oral beta-lactam categorical susceptibility patterns. METHODS: 249 S. pneumoniae isolates were identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-ToF) and then tested by broth microdilution method to penicillin, cefotaxime, amoxicillin, cefdinir, cefpodoxime, and cefuroxime. RESULTS: Using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) non-meningitis breakpoints for cefotaxime, 240/249 isolates were classified as susceptible. Of the cefotaxime susceptible isolates, 23% of the isolates are misrepresented as cefdinir susceptible. Amoxicillin correlated well with penicillin MIC breakpoints with only 1 discordant isolate out of 249. CONCLUSION: The correlation between amoxicillin and penicillin creates a very reliable predictor to determine categorical susceptibility. However oral cephalosporins were not well predicted by either penicillin or cefotaxime leading to the possible risk of treatment failures. Caution should be used when transitioning to oral cephalosporins in cefotaxime susceptible isolates, especially with higher cefotaxime MICs.
Authors: John S Bradley; Carrie L Byington; Samir S Shah; Brian Alverson; Edward R Carter; Christopher Harrison; Sheldon L Kaplan; Sharon E Mace; George H McCracken; Matthew R Moore; Shawn D St Peter; Jana A Stockwell; Jack T Swanson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Diego Viasus; Milly Vecino-Moreno; Juan M De La Hoz; Jordi Carratalà Journal: Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 5.091
Authors: Lauri A Hicks; Monina G Bartoces; Rebecca M Roberts; Katie J Suda; Robert J Hunkler; Thomas H Taylor; Stephanie J Schrag Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Matthew Scarborough; Ho Kwong Li; Ines Rombach; Rhea Zambellas; A Sarah Walker; Martin McNally; Bridget Atkins; Michelle Kümin; Benjamin A Lipsky; Harriet Hughes; Deepa Bose; Simon Warren; Damien Mack; Jonathan Folb; Elinor Moore; Neil Jenkins; Susan Hopkins; R Andrew Seaton; Carolyn Hemsley; Jonathan Sandoe; Ila Aggarwal; Simon Ellis; Rebecca Sutherland; Claudia Geue; Nicola McMeekin; Claire Scarborough; John Paul; Graham Cooke; Jennifer Bostock; Elham Khatamzas; Nick Wong; Andrew Brent; Jose Lomas; Philippa Matthews; Tri Wangrangsimakul; Roger Gundle; Mark Rogers; Adrian Taylor; Guy E Thwaites; Philip Bejon Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Soh Mee Park; Hyung Sook Kim; Young Mi Jeong; Jung Hwa Lee; Eunsook Lee; Euni Lee; Kyoung Ho Song; Hong Bin Kim; Eu Suk Kim Journal: Infect Chemother Date: 2017-03-13