Cargando…

Comparative in vitro activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study

BACKGROUND: Meropenem is a carbapenem that has an excellent activity against many gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic, facultative, and anaerobic bacteria. The major objective of the present study was to assess the in vitro activity of meropenem compared to imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Joly-Guillou, Marie-Laure, Kempf, Marie, Cavallo, Jean-Didier, Chomarat, Monique, Dubreuil, Luc, Maugein, Jeanne, Muller-Serieys, Claudette, Roussel-Delvallez, Micheline
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2845586/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20298555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-10-72
_version_ 1782179412822720512
author Joly-Guillou, Marie-Laure
Kempf, Marie
Cavallo, Jean-Didier
Chomarat, Monique
Dubreuil, Luc
Maugein, Jeanne
Muller-Serieys, Claudette
Roussel-Delvallez, Micheline
author_facet Joly-Guillou, Marie-Laure
Kempf, Marie
Cavallo, Jean-Didier
Chomarat, Monique
Dubreuil, Luc
Maugein, Jeanne
Muller-Serieys, Claudette
Roussel-Delvallez, Micheline
author_sort Joly-Guillou, Marie-Laure
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Meropenem is a carbapenem that has an excellent activity against many gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic, facultative, and anaerobic bacteria. The major objective of the present study was to assess the in vitro activity of meropenem compared to imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam, against 1071 non-repetitive isolates collected from patients with bacteremia (55%), pneumonia (29%), peritonitis (12%) and wound infections (3%), in 15 French hospitals in 2006. The secondary aim of the study was to compare the results of routinely testings and those obtained by a referent laboratory. METHOD: Susceptibility testing and Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs) of meropenem, imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam were determined locally by Etest method. Susceptibility to meropenem was confirmed at a central laboratory by disc diffusion method and MICs determined by agar dilution method for meropenem, imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam. RESULTS: Cumulative susceptibility rates against Escherichia coli were, meropenem and imipenem: 100% and piperacillin/tazobactam: 90%. Against other Enterobacteriaceae, the rates were meropenem: 99%, imipenem: 98% and piperacillin/tazobactam: 90%. All Staphylococci, Streptococci and anaerobes were susceptible to the three antibiotics. Against non fermeters, meropenem was active on 84-94% of the strains, imipenem on 84-98% of the strains and piperacillin/tazobactam on 90-100% of the strains. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to imipenem, meropenem displays lower MICs against Enterobacteriaceae, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Except for non fermenters, MICs90 of carbapenems were <4 mg/L. Piperacillin/tazobactam was less active against Enterobacteriaceae and Acinetobacter but not P. aeruginosa. Some discrepancies were noted between MICs determined by Etest accross centres and MICs determined by agar dilution method at the central laboratory. Discrepancies were more common for imipenem testing and more frequently related to a few centres. Overall MICs determined by Etest were in general higher (0.5 log to 1 log fold) than MICs by agar dilution.
format Text
id pubmed-2845586
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28455862010-03-26 Comparative in vitro activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study Joly-Guillou, Marie-Laure Kempf, Marie Cavallo, Jean-Didier Chomarat, Monique Dubreuil, Luc Maugein, Jeanne Muller-Serieys, Claudette Roussel-Delvallez, Micheline BMC Infect Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: Meropenem is a carbapenem that has an excellent activity against many gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic, facultative, and anaerobic bacteria. The major objective of the present study was to assess the in vitro activity of meropenem compared to imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam, against 1071 non-repetitive isolates collected from patients with bacteremia (55%), pneumonia (29%), peritonitis (12%) and wound infections (3%), in 15 French hospitals in 2006. The secondary aim of the study was to compare the results of routinely testings and those obtained by a referent laboratory. METHOD: Susceptibility testing and Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs) of meropenem, imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam were determined locally by Etest method. Susceptibility to meropenem was confirmed at a central laboratory by disc diffusion method and MICs determined by agar dilution method for meropenem, imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam. RESULTS: Cumulative susceptibility rates against Escherichia coli were, meropenem and imipenem: 100% and piperacillin/tazobactam: 90%. Against other Enterobacteriaceae, the rates were meropenem: 99%, imipenem: 98% and piperacillin/tazobactam: 90%. All Staphylococci, Streptococci and anaerobes were susceptible to the three antibiotics. Against non fermeters, meropenem was active on 84-94% of the strains, imipenem on 84-98% of the strains and piperacillin/tazobactam on 90-100% of the strains. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to imipenem, meropenem displays lower MICs against Enterobacteriaceae, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Except for non fermenters, MICs90 of carbapenems were <4 mg/L. Piperacillin/tazobactam was less active against Enterobacteriaceae and Acinetobacter but not P. aeruginosa. Some discrepancies were noted between MICs determined by Etest accross centres and MICs determined by agar dilution method at the central laboratory. Discrepancies were more common for imipenem testing and more frequently related to a few centres. Overall MICs determined by Etest were in general higher (0.5 log to 1 log fold) than MICs by agar dilution. BioMed Central 2010-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC2845586/ /pubmed/20298555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-10-72 Text en Copyright ©2010 Joly-Guillou et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Joly-Guillou, Marie-Laure
Kempf, Marie
Cavallo, Jean-Didier
Chomarat, Monique
Dubreuil, Luc
Maugein, Jeanne
Muller-Serieys, Claudette
Roussel-Delvallez, Micheline
Comparative in vitro activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study
title Comparative in vitro activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study
title_full Comparative in vitro activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study
title_fullStr Comparative in vitro activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative in vitro activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study
title_short Comparative in vitro activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study
title_sort comparative in vitro activity of meropenem, imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a french multicentre study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2845586/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20298555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-10-72
work_keys_str_mv AT jolyguilloumarielaure comparativeinvitroactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy
AT kempfmarie comparativeinvitroactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy
AT cavallojeandidier comparativeinvitroactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy
AT chomaratmonique comparativeinvitroactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy
AT dubreuilluc comparativeinvitroactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy
AT maugeinjeanne comparativeinvitroactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy
AT mullerserieysclaudette comparativeinvitroactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy
AT rousseldelvallezmicheline comparativeinvitroactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy