Fifty years devoted to anaerobes: historical, lessons, and highlights

Renew interest and enthusiasm for anaerobes stem from both technological improvements (culture media, production of an adequate anaerobic atmosphere, identification methods) and greater awareness on the part of clinicians. Anaerobic infections were historically treated empirically, targeting the species known to be involved in each type of infection. Prevotella, fusobacteria, and Gram-positive cocci (GPAC) were considered responsible for infections above the diaphragm whereas for intra-abdominal infections, Bacteroides of the fragilis group (BFG), GPAC and clostridia were predominantly implicated. The antibiotic susceptibility of anaerobes was only taken into consideration by the clinician in the event of treatment failure or when faced with infections by multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDR). The evolution of antibiotic resistance together with clinical failures due to the absence of detection of hetero-resistant clones has resulted in a greater need for accessible antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) and disc diffusion method. Improved isolation and identification of anaerobes, along with the availability of accessible and robust methods for performing AST, will ensure that treatment, whether empirical or guided by an antibiogram, will lead to better outcomes for anaerobic infections.

Automated summary

Technological improvements and increased awareness have renewed interest and enthusiasm for anaerobes as a cause of infections. Clinicians now consider the antibiotic susceptibility of anaerobes, and accessible methods for testing and treating these infections have improved outcomes.