4.7 Article

In Vitro Susceptibility Testing of Tedizolid against Nontuberculous Mycobacteria

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 6, 页码 1747-1754

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00274-17

关键词

oxazolidinones; susceptibility testing; tedizolid

资金

  1. Merck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tedizolid is a new oxazolidinone with improved in vitro and intracellular potency against Mycobacterium tuberculosis, including multidrug-resistant strains, and some species of nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) compared with that of linezolid. Using the current Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI)-recommended method of broth microdilution, susceptibility testing of 170 isolates of rapidly growing mycobacteria showed equivalent or lower (1- to 8-fold) MIC50 and/or MIC90 values for tedizolid compared with that for linezolid. The tedizolid MIC90 values for 81 isolates of M. abscessus subsp. abscessus and 12 isolates of M. abscessus subsp. massiliense were 8 mu g/ml and 4 mu g/ml, respectively, compared with linezolid MIC90 values of 32 mu g/ml for both. The MIC90 values for 20 isolates of M. fortuitum were 2 mu g/ml for tedizolid and 4 mu g/ml for linezolid. Twenty-two isolates of M. chelonae had tedizolid and linezolid MIC(90)s of 2 mu g/ml and 16 mu g/ml, respectively. One hundred forty-two slowly growing NTM, including 7/7 M. marinum, 7/7 M. kansasii, and 7/11 of other less commonly isolated species, had tedizolid MICs of <= 1 mu g/ml and linezolid MICs of <= 4 mu g/ml. One hundred isolates of Mycobacterium avium complex and eight M. simiae isolates had tedizolid MIC(50)s of 8 mu g/ml and linezolid MIC(50)s 32 and 64 mu g/ml, respectively. Nine M. arupense isolates had MIC(50)s of 4 mu g/ml and 16 mu g/ml for tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. These findings demonstrate a greater in vitro potency of tedizolid than linezolid against NTM and suggest that an evaluation of tedizolid as a potential treatment agent for infections caused by selected NTM is warranted.

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