4.3 Article

Comparative activities of cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam tested against a global collection of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. with an ESBL phenotype

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2006.08.016

关键词

ESBL; Klebsiella; Escherichia coli; cefepime; piperacillin/tazobactam

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cefepime exhibits more stability to hydrolysis by extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) compared with other cephalosporins, and piperacillin/tazobactam may be active against these pathogens because of the enzyme inhibitory activity of tazobactam. Thus, we evaluated the in vitro activity of these 2 antimicrobials against a large collection of isolates with an ESBL phenotype. A total of 50,637 clinical isolates (34,367 Escherichia coli and 16,270 Klebsiella spp.) collected from more than 80 medical centers (1998-2004) were tested by reference broth microdilution methods, and isolates with an ESBL phenotype (MIC, >= 2 mu g/mL for aztreonam or ceftazidime or ceftriaxone) were submitted to a clavulanate inhibition test (confirmation of ES13L production). Among isolates from North America, 3.9% of E. coli and 8.6% of Klebsiella spp. showed an ES13L phenotype, whereas among isolates from the rest of the world (ROW) (Europe, Latin America, and Asia), 7.7% of E. coli and 28.3% of Klebsiella spp. exhibited this pattern. Confrmation rates varied from 21.6% of E. coli in North America to 52.8% of Klebsiella spp. in the row. Among E. coli from North America, cefepime (90.3% susceptibility) was generally more active than piperacillin/tazobactam (82.7%), especially among ESBL-not-confirmed (97.0% versus 85.5%). Cefepime also showed reasonable activity against Klehsiella spp. from North America (89.4% susceptibility). In general, isolates from North America exhibited higher susceptibility rates to both beta-lactams compared with isolates from the ROW, and ESBL-not-confirmed strains showed generally higher susceptibility rates than ESBL-confirmed organisms. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.3
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