4.7 Article

Incidence and epidemiology of levofloxacin resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae: experience from a tertiary referral hospital in England

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 65, 期 3, 页码 449-452

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkp463

关键词

mutations; parC; gyrA; MLST; pneumonia

资金

  1. LTHTR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the incidence of levofloxacin resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates cultured by Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (LTHTR), and detect cases of in vivo resistance development. During the study period (September 2004-February 2007), isolates of S. pneumoniae cultured by the LTHTR microbiology laboratory were examined by Etest to determine MICs of levofloxacin. Isolates from patients in whom there was a shift towards colonization with S. pneumoniae of reduced levofloxacin susceptibility were further characterized by serotyping, multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and sequencing of parC and gyrA genes. Eight hundred and sixty-five isolates were collected; however, 772 isolates from 652 patients were recoverable; 412 (53.4%) came from hospitalized patients, 12 (1.6%) were resistant to levofloxacin according to the BSAC breakpoint (> 2 mg/L) and 29 (3.8%) had MICs at the breakpoint (MIC = 2 mg/L). Of six patients in whom there was a shift towards isolates with reduced levofloxacin susceptibility, five had acquired new distinct strains. One patient, who had a parC mutation (Ser79Phe) in the original susceptible isolate and an additional second-step mutation in the gyrA gene (Ser81Phe) of the later resistant one, had isolates belonging to the same pneumococcal clone. S. pneumoniae resistance to levofloxacin was uncommon and we managed to identify only one case of probable in vivo resistance development in the 2.5 years of the study. Strain replacement accounted for the majority of incidences where there was an apparent shift towards colonization with isolates of reduced levofloxacin susceptibility.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据