Comparison of etest to broth microdilution for testing of susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to ceftolozane-tazobactam

Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 334-335

  Flynt, Lauren K ^a   Veve, Michael P ^a,b   Samuel, Linoj P ^a   Tibbetts, Robert J ^a  

^a HENRY FORD HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ceftolozane tazobactam

Indexed keywords

CEFTOLOZANE PLUS TAZOBACTAM;

ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY; BACTERIAL GROWTH; BACTERIUM IDENTIFICATION; BACTERIUM ISOLATION; BROTH DILUTION; EPSILOMETER TEST; GROWTH RATE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LETTER; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; MORTALITY RATE; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA; QUALITY CONTROL; RETRACTION NOTICE;

EID: 85008350884     PISSN: 00951137     EISSN: 1098660X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01920-16     Document Type: Letter

References (11)

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf. Accessed 2 September 2016.
2. Nathwani D, Raman G, Sulham K, Menon V. 2014. Clinical and economic consequences of hospital-acquired resistant and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 3:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2994-3-32.
3. Papp-Wallace KM, Bonomo RA. 2016. New β-lactamase inhibitors in clinic. Infect Dis Clin North Am 30:441-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2016.02.007.
4. Humphries RM, Hindler JA. 2016. Emerging resistance, new antimicrobial agents⋯ but not tests! The challenge of antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the current US regulations. Clin Infect Dis 63:83-88. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw201.
5. Burns JL, Saiman L, Whittier S, Krewinski J, Liu Z, Larone D, Marshall SA, Jones RN. 2001. Comparison of two commercial systems (Vitek and MicroScan-WalkAway) for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolate in cystic fibrosis patients. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 39:257-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-8893(01)00234-6.
6. Gagliotti C, Sarti M, Sabia C, Gargiulo R, Rossolini GM, Carillo C, Cassani C, Cipolloni AP, Pedna F, Rossi MR, Incerti SS, Testa G, Venturelli C, Moro ML. 2011. Accuracy of automated and manual susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to piperacillin and piperacillin-tazobactam. New Microbiol 34:97-99.
7. CLSI. 2016. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 26th informational supplement. CLSI M100S. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
8. CLSI. 2015. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically, 10th ed. CLSI M07. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
9. Clark RB, Lewinski MA, Loeffelholz MJ, Tibbetts RJ. 2009. Cumitech 31A, Verification and validation of procedures in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Coordinating ed, Sharp SE. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
10. Micek ST, Lloyd AE, Ritchie DJ, Reichley RM, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. 2005. Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infection: importance of appropriate initial antimicrobial treatment. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:1306-1311. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.49.4.1306-1311.2005.
11. Kollef MH. 2000. Inadequate antimicrobial treatment: an important determinant of outcome for hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis 31: S131-S138. https://doi.org/10.1086/314079.