Cover Image

MIC distribution profile of newer antibiotics among gram-negative bacteria in a tertiary care centre

PALLAVI RAVINDRA BALIGA

Abstract


Worldwide, multi-drug resistant (MDR)                         gram-negative infections are a growing concern. Majority of the nosocomial infections including pneumonia, urinary tract              infections, intra-abdominal infections and bloodstream infections are caused by gram-negative organisms such as Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii complex. These infections are              responsible for significant mortality and morbidity. Currently limited numbers of antimicrobials are available for use to treat these multi-drug resistant organisms. Newer antimicrobials have been evaluated and approved for use in few countries. However the efficacy and baseline MIC values of the new antimicrobials against the gram-negative organisms have not been evaluated in other countries including India. Morover, no standard             interpretative breakpoints such as CLSI or EUCAST criteria are available for interpretation of the susceptibility results of these antimicrobials. In this study we calculated the MIC50 and MIC90 values for five antibiotics to confirm their efficacy as probable treatment options for MDR gram-negative organisms. MIC50 and MIC90 are statistical percentiles which help surmise the MIC results and reflect the susceptibility patterns of bacteria to specific antimicrobials.


Full Text:

PDF

References


References:

Tumbarello M, Viale P, Viscoli C, Trecarichi EM, Tumietto F, Marchese A, et al. Predictors ofmortality in bloodstream infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing K. bpneumoniae: importance of combination therapy. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012 Oct;55(7):943–50.

Andrews JM. Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2001 Committee Enterobacteriaceae P.aeruginosa A.baumanii complex

Interpretative criteria 2012 MIC breakpoints for Arbekacin, Biapenem and Cefminox S I R S I R S I R CLSI NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR EUCAST NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR MIC breakpoints for colistin S I R S I R S I R CLSI NR NR NR 2 - 8 2 - 4 EUCAST 2 - > 2 4 - > 4 2 - > 2 Jul;48 Suppl 1:5–16.

Schwarz S, Silley P, Simjee S, Woodford N, Van Duijkeren E, Johnson AP, et al. Editorial: assessing the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria obtained from animals. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2010 Apr;65(4):601–4.

Lee D-G, Chun H-S, Yim D-S, Choi S-M, Choi J-H, Yoo J-H, et al. Efficacies of vancomycin, arbekacin, and gentamicin alone or in combination against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro infective endocarditis model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2003 Dec;47(12):3768–73.

Thamlikitkul V, Tiengrim S. In Vitro Activity of Biapenem against Gram-Negative Bacteria Isolated from Hospitalized Patients at Siriraj Hospital. J INFECT DIS ANTIMICROB AGENTS. 2010 May;27(2):55–9.

Dámaso D, Burillo A, Rogero G, Losada I. [Should cefminox substitute cefoxitin in infections caused by bacteria susceptible to both drugs?]. Rev Esp Quimioter. 1999 Dec;12(4):325–31.

Li J, Nation RL, Milne RW, Turnidge JD, Coulthard K. Evaluation of colistin as an agent against multi-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2005 Jan;25(1):11–25.

Hamada Y, Tamura K, Koyama I, Kuroyama M, Yago K, Sunakawa K. Clinical efficacy of arbekacin for Gram-negative bacteria. J. Infect. Chemother. 2011 Dec;17(6):876–9.

Hoban DJ, Jones RN, Yamane N, Frei R, Trilla A, Pignatari AC. In vitro activity of three carbapenem antibiotics. Comparative studies with biapenem (L-627), imipenem, and meropenem against aerobic pathogens isolated worldwide. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 1993 Dec;17(4):299–305


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

An Initiative of The Tamil Nadu Dr M.G.R. Medical University