4.7 Article

Antibiotic susceptibilities of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates derived from patients with cystic fibrosis under aerobic, anaerobic, and biofilm conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 43, 期 10, 页码 5085-5090

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.43.10.5085-5090.2005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have determined that Pseudomonas aeruginosa can live in a biofilm mode within hypoxic mucus in the airways of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). P. aeruginosa grown under anaerobic and biofilm conditions may better approximate in vivo growth conditions in the CF airways, and combination antibiotic susceptibility testing of anaerobically and biofilm-grown isolates may be more relevant than traditional susceptibility testing under planktonic aerobic conditions. We tested 16 multidrug-resistant isolates of P. aeruginosa derived from CF patients using multiple combination bactericidal testing to compare the efficacies of double and triple antibiotic combinations against the isolates grown under traditional aerobic planktonic conditions, in planktonic anaerobic conditions, and in biofilm mode. Both anaerobically grown and biofilm-grown bacteria were significantly less susceptible (P < 0.01) to single and combination antibiotics than corresponding aerobic planktonically grown isolates. Furthermore, the antibiotic combinations that were bactericidal under anaerobic conditions were often different from those that were bactericidal against the same organisms grown as biofilms. The most effective combinations under all conditions were colistin (tested at concentrations suitable for nebulization) either alone or in combination with tobramycin (10 mu g ml(-1)), followed by meropenem combined with tobramycin or ciprofloxacin. The findings of this study illustrate that antibiotic sensitivities are dependent on culture conditions and highlight the complexities of choosing appropriate combination therapy for multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa in the CF lung.

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