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,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |