Comparative <it>in vitro </it>activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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 <it>in vitro </it...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2010-03-01
|
Series: | BMC Infectious Diseases |
Online Access: | http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/10/72 |
id |
doaj-7741d1336cb04dd1b71db390f0d2ee9e |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-7741d1336cb04dd1b71db390f0d2ee9e2020-11-25T02:02:38ZengBMCBMC Infectious Diseases1471-23342010-03-011017210.1186/1471-2334-10-72Comparative <it>in vitro </it>activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre studyMaugein JeanneDubreuil LucChomarat MoniqueCavallo Jean-DidierKempf MarieJoly-Guillou Marie-LaureMuller-Serieys ClaudetteRoussel-Delvallez Micheline<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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 <it>in vitro </it>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.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Cumulative susceptibility rates against <it>Escherichia coli </it>were, meropenem and imipenem: 100% and piperacillin/tazobactam: 90%. Against other <it>Enterobacteriaceae</it>, the rates were meropenem: 99%, imipenem: 98% and piperacillin/tazobactam: 90%. All <it>Staphylococci</it>, <it>Streptococci </it>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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Compared to imipenem, meropenem displays lower MICs against <it>Enterobacteriaceae</it>, <it>Escherichia coli </it>and <it>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</it>. Except for non fermenters, MICs90 of carbapenems were <4 mg/L. Piperacillin/tazobactam was less active against <it>Enterobacteriaceae </it>and <it>Acinetobacter </it>but not <it>P. aeruginosa</it>. 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.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/10/72 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Maugein Jeanne Dubreuil Luc Chomarat Monique Cavallo Jean-Didier Kempf Marie Joly-Guillou Marie-Laure Muller-Serieys Claudette Roussel-Delvallez Micheline |
spellingShingle |
Maugein Jeanne Dubreuil Luc Chomarat Monique Cavallo Jean-Didier Kempf Marie Joly-Guillou Marie-Laure Muller-Serieys Claudette Roussel-Delvallez Micheline Comparative <it>in vitro </it>activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study BMC Infectious Diseases |
author_facet |
Maugein Jeanne Dubreuil Luc Chomarat Monique Cavallo Jean-Didier Kempf Marie Joly-Guillou Marie-Laure Muller-Serieys Claudette Roussel-Delvallez Micheline |
author_sort |
Maugein Jeanne |
title |
Comparative <it>in vitro </it>activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study |
title_short |
Comparative <it>in vitro </it>activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study |
title_full |
Comparative <it>in vitro </it>activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study |
title_fullStr |
Comparative <it>in vitro </it>activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparative <it>in vitro </it>activity of Meropenem, Imipenem and Piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a French multicentre study |
title_sort |
comparative <it>in vitro </it>activity of meropenem, imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactam against 1071 clinical isolates using 2 different methods: a french multicentre study |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
BMC Infectious Diseases |
issn |
1471-2334 |
publishDate |
2010-03-01 |
description |
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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 <it>in vitro </it>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.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Cumulative susceptibility rates against <it>Escherichia coli </it>were, meropenem and imipenem: 100% and piperacillin/tazobactam: 90%. Against other <it>Enterobacteriaceae</it>, the rates were meropenem: 99%, imipenem: 98% and piperacillin/tazobactam: 90%. All <it>Staphylococci</it>, <it>Streptococci </it>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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Compared to imipenem, meropenem displays lower MICs against <it>Enterobacteriaceae</it>, <it>Escherichia coli </it>and <it>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</it>. Except for non fermenters, MICs90 of carbapenems were <4 mg/L. Piperacillin/tazobactam was less active against <it>Enterobacteriaceae </it>and <it>Acinetobacter </it>but not <it>P. aeruginosa</it>. 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.</p> |
url |
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/10/72 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT maugeinjeanne comparativeitinvitroitactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy AT dubreuilluc comparativeitinvitroitactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy AT chomaratmonique comparativeitinvitroitactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy AT cavallojeandidier comparativeitinvitroitactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy AT kempfmarie comparativeitinvitroitactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy AT jolyguilloumarielaure comparativeitinvitroitactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy AT mullerserieysclaudette comparativeitinvitroitactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy AT rousseldelvallezmicheline comparativeitinvitroitactivityofmeropenemimipenemandpiperacillintazobactamagainst1071clinicalisolatesusing2differentmethodsafrenchmulticentrestudy |
_version_ |
1724951657390800896 |