4.7 Article

In vitro activity of linezolid and 12 other antimicrobials against coryneform bacteria

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2006.11.032

关键词

coryneform bacteria; oxazolidinone; sensitivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To compare the in vitro activity of linezolid with 12 other antimicrobials against 190 strains of the coryneform bacteria, including 60 strains of C. amycolatum, 30 of C. striatum, 30 of C. jeikeium, 10 of C. urealyticum, 20 of B. casei, 20 of D. hominis and 20 of T. otitidis. Methods: Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and time-death curves were carried out according to the recommendations of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Results: Linezolid was very active against the 130 strains of the Corynebacterium species studied. Only the glycopeptides showed similar efficacy. In contrast, penicillin G, ampicillin, macrolides, lincosamides, fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides showed generally high MICs. Among the beta-lactams, only imipenem was active against the majority of strains of C. striattun and C. amycolatum, and, approximately half of the C. jeikeium and C. urealyticum isolates. Both Dermabacter hominis and Brevibacterium casei showed marked resistance against most of the antimicrobials tested, while Turicella otitidis only showed high MICs against macrolides and clindamycin. For all of them, linezolid, vancomycin and teicoplanin proved effective. The time-death curves showed linezolid to behave as a bacteriostatic agent (approximately 90% death rate). Such activity was more accentuated for C. amycolatum and C. striatum (reduction of 1.3 and 1.7 log 10 CFU/mL, respectively) than for C. jeikeium and C. urealyticum (reduction of 1.0 and 0.8 log(10), respectively). Conclusions: Our results indicate that linezolid is active against coryneform bacteria. The efficacy of linezolid is equal to or even superior to that of the glycopeptides. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

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