4.7 Article

Antimicrobial activity of LFF571 and three treatment agents against Clostridium difficile isolates collected for a pan-European survey in 2008: clinical and therapeutic implications

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 68, 期 6, 页码 1305-1311

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkt013

关键词

MICs; metronidazole; vancomycin; fidaxomicin

资金

  1. Novartis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In November 2008, a study was performed with support from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to obtain an overview of Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs) in European hospitals. A collection of 398 C. difficile isolates obtained from this hospital-based survey was utilized to identify antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of common C. difficile PCR ribotypes across Europe. The MICs of three approved therapeutic agents (vancomycin, metronidazole and fidaxomicin) and LFF571 (a novel semi-synthetic thiopeptide antibiotic) were determined by the agar dilution method. MICs of fidaxomicin and LFF571 were in general 24-fold lower than those of vancomycin and metronidazole. Isolates belonging to clade 2, including the hypervirulent ribotype 027, had one-dilution higher MIC50 and MIC90 values for fidaxomicin and metronidazole, whereas similar MIC values were observed for vancomycin and LFF571. Isolates belonging to C. difficile PCR ribotype 001 were more susceptible to fidaxomicin than other frequently found PCR ribotypes 014/020 and 078. Six isolates from three different countries had a metronidazole MIC of 2 mg/L. Four of the six isolates were characterized as PCR ribotype 001. There was no evidence of in vitro resistance of C. difficile to any of the four agents tested. However, the results suggest type-specific differences in susceptibility for the treatment agents we investigated. Continuous surveillance of C. difficile isolates in Europe is needed to determine the possible clinical implications of ribotype-specific changes in susceptibility to therapeutic agents.

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