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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Maugein Jeanne, Dubreuil Luc, Chomarat Monique, Cavallo Jean-Didier, Kempf Marie, Joly-Guillou Marie-Laure, Muller-Serieys Claudette, Roussel-Delvallez Micheline
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