4.2 Article

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns of Legionella spp. Strains Isolated from Water Systems in Morocco

期刊

MICROBIAL DRUG RESISTANCE
卷 26, 期 8, 页码 991-996

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/mdr.2019.0218

关键词

antimicrobial susceptibility; Legionella; MIC; fluoroquinolone; macrolide

资金

  1. Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique et Technique of Morocco [PPR2015/16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Legionella is a waterborne pathogen that causes a severe form of pneumonia called Legionnaires' diseases, which is normally acquired by inhalation of aerosols containing Legionella originating from natural and man-made water systems. The aim of this study was to describe the level of antimicrobial susceptibility of environmental Legionella spp. strains to preferred and recommended therapeutic agents to treat Legionella disease. Methods: The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 60 environmental Legionella spp. strains were tested using the broth dilution method. Susceptibility testing was performed for 12 antimicrobial agents: macrolides (erythromycin, azithromycin [AZI], and clarithromycin [CLA]), fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gemifloxacin), a ketolide (telithromycin), cefotaxime (CEF), tigecycline (TIG), doxycycline (DOX), and rifampicin (RIF). Results: All tested strains of Legionella spp. were inhibited by low concentrations of fluoroquinolones and macrolides. Regarding the macrolides, CLA was the most active antibiotic, and AZI was the least active. RIF was the most effective antibiotic against the isolates in vitro. All isolates were inhibited by the following antibiotics (in decreasing order of their MICs): DOX>CEF>TIG. Conclusions: No resistance against these drugs was detected, and all isolates were inhibited by low concentrations of the tested antibiotics. Susceptibility testing of environmental Legionella spp. isolates must be monitored often to detect and evaluate the possible development of antibiotic resistance.

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

4.2
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