In-vitro study of the susceptibility of cefoxitin/cefotetan resistant Bacteroides fragilis group strains to various other antimicrobial agents

1990 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth E. Aldridge ◽  
Amy Henderberg ◽  
Charles V. Sanders
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Agents ◽  
Bacteroides Fragilis ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Bacteroides Fragilis Group

scholarly journals In Vitro Activity of Tedizolid Compared to Linezolid and Five Other Antimicrobial Agents against 332 Anaerobic Isolates, Including Bacteroides fragilis Group, Prevotella, Porphyromonas, and Veillonella Species

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellie J. C. Goldstein ◽  
C. Vreni Merriam ◽  
Diane M. Citron
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Antimicrobial Agents ◽  
Bacteroides Fragilis ◽  
Vitro Activity ◽  
Mixed Infections ◽  
In Vitro Activity ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Bacteroides Fragilis Group ◽  
Group Species

ABSTRACT Tedizolid’s anaerobic activity is unappreciated. In this study, it was active against all 332 anaerobic isolates tested at ≤2 μg/ml except Bilophila wadsworthia and was more active than linezolid against Bacteroides fragilis group species (MIC90, 1 μg/ml versus 2 to 4 μg/ml). Tedizolid was active against Gram-positive anaerobes (MIC90 for clostridia, 0.25 to 1 μg/ml; MIC90 for anaerobic cocci, ≤0.06 to 0.25 μg/ml). Our data coupled with clinical reports indicate that clinicians should consider its use in mixed infections where Staphylococcus aureus and anaerobes are involved.

scholarly journals P0540EFFECT OF MEMBRANE MATERIALS ON VANCOMYCIN, TEICOPLANIN AND LINEZOLID REMOVAL DURING CONTINUOUS RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPIES: AN IN VITRO STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Llaria Godi ◽  
Anna Lorenzin ◽  
Massimo De Cal ◽  
Claudio Ronco
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Agents ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Adsorptive Capacity ◽  
Membrane Materials ◽  
Renal Replacement Therapies ◽  
Continuous Renal Replacement Therapies ◽  
Balance Analysis ◽  
Adsorptive Properties

Abstract Background and Aims In a continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) scenario, removal of anti-methicillin resistant Staphylococcus Aureus agents can be quantitatively important, thereby contributing to clinically relevant decreases in their plasma concentration during treatment. Extracorporeal elimination of antimicrobial agents is influenced by the dose and modality prescribed, as well as the sieving coefficient (SC) and adsorptive properties of the membrane used.The aim of this study was to document the specific SC and adsorptive capacity of three different membrane materials related to vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid. Method This in vitro study used a model of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration. 500 ml of whole blood from healthy donor spiked with one antibiotic under investigation was pumped (blood flow of 50 ml/min and ultrafiltrate flow of 10 ml/min) in a closed-circuit using polysulfone (PS), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and polyacrylonitrile (PAN) membranes. Samples were collected from in-flow, out-flow and ultrafiltrate lines in a 360 min period. Antibiotic concentrations were measured to calculate SCs. Mass balance analysis was assessed to evaluate the adsorptive capacity of PS, PMMA and PAN membrane related to each antibiotic. Results The SCs were substantially affected by the hemodialyzers material in the case of Vancomycin, where PMMA membrane had higher SC (SC=0.89±0.01) compared to PAN (SC=0.79±0.02) and PS (SC=0.62±0.03) membranes. The effect of material was minor for Teicoplanin (Sc=0.12±0.05 for PS, Sc=0.17±0.05 for PMMA, Sc=0.19±0.00 for PAN) and no noticeable difference within hemodialyzers was found for Linezolid (Sc=0.92±0.03 for PS, Sc=0.95±0.01 for PMMA, Sc=0.95±0.00 for PAN). In terms of adsorptive capacity, PS and PMMA membranes showed higher interaction with Vancomycin and Teicoplanin compared with PAN membrane, while a small amount of Linezolid was adsorbed by all the three filters. The cumulative adsorbed amount of PS and PMMA of Teicoplanin were also clinically relevant (99.15 mg/m2 and 51.33 mg/m2 respectively) compared to PAN membrane (9.14 mg/m2). Conclusion PS, PMMA and PAN membranes behave differently in terms of sieving and adsorptive properties related to vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid. These differences may have a clinical influence on vancomycin and teicoplanin removal during CRRT, while linezolid variability during CRRT hasn’t to be ascribed for membrane material.

scholarly journals Effects of Commonly Used Topical Antimicrobial Agents onAcinetobacter baumannii: An In Vitro Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 181 (10) ◽  
pp. 1391-1391
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Davis ◽  
Franco Pisanni ◽  
Ramon B. Montero
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Agents ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Topical Antimicrobial
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document