In-vitro activity of cefaclor, cephalexin and ampidillin against 2458 clinical isolates of Haemophilus influenzae

1988 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Powell ◽  
J. D. Williams
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-99
Author(s):  
Nataly V. Ivanchik ◽  
Мarina V. Sukhorukova ◽  
Аida N. Chagaryan ◽  
Ivan V. Trushin ◽  
Andrey V. Dekhnich ◽  
...  

Objective. To determine in vitro activity of thiamphenicol and other clinically available antimicrobials against clinical isolates of Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes. Materials and Methods. We included in the study 875 clinical isolates from 20 Russian cities during 2018–2019. Among tested strains, 126 were H. influenzae, 389 – S. pneumoniae, 360 – S. pyogenes. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using broth microdilution method according to ISO 20776-1:2006. AST results were interpreted according to EUCAST v.11.0 clinical breakpoints. Results. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of thiamphenicol did not exceed 2 mg/L for 94.4% of H. influenzae strains (MIC50 and MIC90 were 0.5 and 1 mg/L, respectively). Thiamphenicol was active against 76.9% of ampicillin-resistant H. influenzae strains (MIC of thiamphenicol < 2 mg/L). The MIC of thiamphenicol was in the range of 0.06–2 mg/L for 96.7% of S. pneumoniae strains (MIC50 and MIC90 were 0.5 and 2 mg/L, respectively). The MIC of thiamphenicol for 90.6% of S. pneumoniae strains with reduced susceptibility to penicillin (MIC of penicillin > 0.06 mg/L) did not exceed 2 mg/L. A total of 88.1% of S. pneumoniae strains resistant to erythromycin were highly susceptible to thiamphenicol (MIC < 2 mg/L). The MIC of thiamphenicol did not exceed 8 mg/L for 96.1% of S. pyogenes strains (MIC50 and MIC90 were 2 and 4 mg/L, respectively). Conclusions. Thiamphenicol was characterized by relatively high in vitro activity, comparable to that of chloramphenicol, against tested strains of H. influenzae, S. pneumoniae and S. pyogenes, including S. pneumoniae isolates with reduced susceptibility to penicillin.


2000 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 447-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela B. Brueggemann ◽  
Gary V. Doern ◽  
Holly K. Huynh ◽  
Elizabeth M. Wingert ◽  
Paul R. Rhomberg

ABSTRACT The in vitro activity of ABT-773 was evaluated againstStreptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis isolates. ABT-773 was the most active antimicrobial tested against S. pneumoniae. ABT-773 and azithromycin were equivalent in activity against H. influenzae and M. catarrhalis and more active than either clarithromycin or erythromycin.


2001 ◽  
Vol 45 (10) ◽  
pp. 2922-2924 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur L. Barry ◽  
Peter C. Fuchs ◽  
Steven D. Brown

ABSTRACT The in vitro activities of ABT-773, azithromycin, erythromycin, and clindamycin were compared by testing 1,223 clinical isolates selected to represent different species and phenotypes. ABT-773 was particularly potent against staphylococci (the MIC at which 90% of the strains tested were inhibited [MIC90] was ≤0.06 μg/ml), including all strains that were macrolide resistant but clindamycin susceptible.Streptococcus pneumoniae and other streptococci were inhibited by low concentrations of ABT-773, and that included most erythromycin-resistant strains. Against Haemophilus influenzae, ABT-773 and azithromycin were similar in their antibacterial potency (MIC90, 4.0 and 2.0 μg/ml, respectively).


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S655-S655
Author(s):  
Daniel Navas ◽  
Angela Charles ◽  
Amy Carr ◽  
Jose Alexander

Abstract Background The activity of imipenem/relebactam (I/R), ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) and cefiderocol (FDC) were evaluated against clinical isolates of multidrug resistant (MDR) strains of P. aeruginosa which was resistant to ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T). The recent increase of MDR P. aeruginosa strains isolated from clinical samples has prompted research and development of new antimicrobials that can withstand its multiple resistance mechanisms. C/T is an effective option for treatment of MDR P. aeruginosa in our facility with only 10% of resistance in MDR strains, but the emergence of resistance may occur due to the presence of a carbapenemase gene or an ampC mutation. Methods Antimicrobial susceptibility testing for C/T Etest® (bioMérieux, Inc.) were performed on all MDR strains initially screened by the VITEK2® (bioMérieux, Inc.). 10% (n=20) of all MDR isolates were resistant to C/T by the CLSI 2019 breakpoints. These resistant isolates were tested for presence of a carbapenemase gene using the GeneXpert CARBA-R (Cepheid®) PCR and against CZA Etest® (bioMérieux, Inc.) I/R gradient strips (Liofilchem®) and FDC broth microdilution (Thermo Scientific™ Sensititre™). Results A total of 20 clinical isolates of MDR P. aeruginosa resistant to C/T were tested following standardized CLSI protocols and techniques. All 20 isolates were screened for the presence of a carbapenemase gene (blaVIM, blaNDM, blaKPC, blaOXA-48, blaIMP). A blaVIM gene was detected in 6 (30%) out of 20 isolates. FDC demonstrated the greatest activity with 85% (n=17) of susceptible isolates (CLSI MIC &lt;4µg/dL). CZA (CLSI MIC &lt;8µg/dL) and I/R (FDA MIC &lt;2µg/dL) showed 15% (n=3) and 10% (n=2) of susceptible isolates respectively. FDC was active against all 6 blaVIM isolates, where all 6 strains were resistant to CZA and I/R as expected. 3 isolates tested non-susceptible against FDC; additional characterization was not performed at this time. Conclusion Based on these results, FDC demonstrated the greatest in-vitro activity against C/T resistant strains of MDR P. aeruginosa. FDC also demonstrated activity against all 6 MDR P. aeruginosa carrying blaVIM gene. FDC is a strong option to consider on MDR P. aeruginosa strains based on a resistance testing algorithm and a cost/effective protocol. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


Mycoses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamid Badali ◽  
Connie Cañete‐Gibas ◽  
Hoja Patterson ◽  
Carmita Sanders ◽  
Barbara Mermella ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 39 (11) ◽  
pp. 4208-4209 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Barchiesi ◽  
D. Arzeni ◽  
V. Camiletti ◽  
O. Simonetti ◽  
A. Cellini ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document