4.3 Article

Wild-type MIC distribution and epidemiological cut-off values in clinical Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 isolates

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2011.09.016

关键词

L. pneumophila; Epidemiological cut-off values; Macrolides; Fluoroquinolones; Susceptibility

资金

  1. Regional Laboratory of Public Health, Haarlem

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to establish wild-type (WT) distributions and determine the epidemiological cut-off values (ECOFF) in clinical L. pneumophila serogroup 1 isolates for 10 antimicrobials commonly used for the treatment of Legionella infections using a method feasible in a routine clinical laboratory. Methods: MICs of 183 clinical L. pneumophila serogroup I isolates, collected as part of an outbreak detection program, were tested using E-test methodology on buffered charcoal yeast extract agar supplemented with alpha-ketoglutarate (BCYE-alpha). The MICs were read after 2 days of incubation at 35 degrees C with increased humidity and without CO2. ECOFFs were determined according to EUCAST methodology and expressed as WT <= X mg/L. Results: All antimicrobials showed a WT distribution, although the width varied from 2 two-fold dilutions to 8 dilutions, depending on antibiotic class. The ECOFFs determined were 1.0 mg/L for ciprofloxacin, 0.50 mg/L for levofloxacin, 1.0 mg/L for moxifloxacin, 1.0 mg/L for erythromycin, 1.0 mg/L for azithromycin, 0.50 mg/L for clarithromycin, 1.0 mg/L for cefotaxime, 0.032 mg/L for rifampicin, 16 mg/L for tigecycline, and 8 mg/L for doxycycline. Conclusion: All isolates were inhibited by low concentrations of the fluoroquinolones and macrolides tested, with somewhat higher MICs for the fluoroquinolones. Rifampicin was found to be the most active against L. pneumophila isolates in vitro. These data can be used as a reference for the detection of resistance in clinical L. pneumophila isolates and as a setting of clinical breakpoints. (C) 2012 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