Effect of choice of medium on the results of in vitro susceptibility testing of eight antibiotics against the Bacteroides fragilis group

Anaerobic infections: update on treatment considerations

Anaerobic bacteria are the predominant indigenous flora of humans and, as a result, play an important role in infections, some of which are serious with a high mortality rate. These opportunistic pathogens are frequently missed in cultures of clinical samples because of shortcomings in collection and transport procedures as well as lack of isolation and susceptibility testing of anaerobes in many clinical microbiology laboratories. Correlation of clinical failures with known antibacterial resistance of anaerobic bacteria is seldom possible. Changes in resistance over time, and the discovery and characterization of resistance determinants in anaerobic bacteria, has increased recognition of problems in empirical treatment and has even resulted in changes in treatment guidelines. This review discusses the role of anaerobic bacteria in the normal flora of humans, their involvement in different mixed infections, developments in antibacterial resistance of the most frequent anaerobic pathogens and possible new treatment options.

Multilaboratory comparison of anaerobe susceptibility results using 3 different agar media

A 5-laboratory study was performed that used the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) reference agar dilution method with 3 media formulations to determine whether the use of different media would affect minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) results. Wilkins-Chalgren, Brucella-based blood agar (BRU), and Wilkins-Chalgren agar plus blood (WCB) and 6 antibiotics (clindamycin, cefoxitin, ceftizoxime, piperacillin, metronidazole, and trovafloxacin) were evaluated with 58 isolates. The MIC values were compared, and a significant correlation of >0.80 was demonstrated for all media and each antibiotic/organism group. The cumulative rate of errors for all antibiotics was 0.1%. These data indicate that a change in the NCCLS reference medium for testing of anaerobic bacteria susceptibility to either BRU or WCB will not affect the MIC results for the antibiotics and organisms evaluated.

Antimicrobial resistance and clinical outcome of Bacteroides bacteremia: findings of a multicenter prospective observational trial

There is debate regarding the correlation between in vitro susceptibility testing and clinical response to therapy for Bacteroides bacteremia. We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study of 128 patients with bacteroides bacteremia. Outcome was correlated with results of in vitro susceptibility testing of Bacteroides isolates recovered from blood and/or nonblood sites, determined with use of 3 end points: mortality at 30 days, clinical response (cure vs. failure), and microbiological response (eradication vs. persistence). The mortality rate among patients who received inactive therapy (45%) was higher than among patients who received active therapy (16%; P=.04). Clinical failure (82%) and microbiological persistence (42%) were higher for patients who received inactive therapy than for patients who received active therapy (22% and 12%, respectively; P=.0002 and.06, respectively). In vitro activity of agents directed at Bacteroides species reliably predicts outcome: the specificity was 97%, and positive predictive value was 82%. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing may be indicated for patients whose blood specimens yield Bacteroides species.

Piperacillin/tazobactam: an updated review of its use in the treatment of bacterial infections

Piperacillin/tazobactam is a beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination with a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity encompassing most Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria, including many pathogens producing beta-lactamases. Evidence from clinical trials in adults has shown that piperacillin/tazobactam, administered in an 8:1 ratio, is an effective treatment for patients with lower respiratory tract, intra-abdominal, urinary tract, gynaecological and skin/soft tissue infections, and for fever in patients with neutropenia. Combination regimens of piperacillin/tazobactam plus an aminoglycoside are used to treat patients with severe nosocomial (hospital-acquired) infections. In clinical trials, piperacillin/tazobactam was significantly more effective than ticarcillin/clavulanic acid in terms of clinical and microbiological outcome in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. In patients with intra-abdominal infections, clinical and bacteriological response rates were significantly higher with piperacillin/tazobactam than with imipenem/cilastatin (administered at a dosage lower than is recommended in countries outside Scandinavia). Piperacillin/tazobactam in combination with amikacin was at least as effective as ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia and was significantly more effective than ceftazidime plus amikacin in the empirical treatment of febrile episodes in patients with neutropenia or granulocytopenia. In other trials, the efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam was similar to that of standard aminoglycoside-containing and other treatment regimens in patients with intra-abdominal, skin/soft tissue or gynaecological infections. Piperacillin/tazobactam is generally well tolerated. The most frequent adverse events are gastrointestinal symptoms (most commonly diarrhoea) and skin reactions. The incidence of adverse events with piperacillin/tazobactam is higher when the combination is given in combination with an aminoglycoside than when given as monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Because of the broad spectrum of antibacterial activity provided by piperacillin/tazobactam, it is useful for the treatment of patients with polymicrobial infections caused by aerobic or anaerobic beta-lactamase-producing bacteria. Piperacillin/tazobactam appears to have a particularly useful role in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infections and, in combination with amikacin, in the treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia, especially given the current prevalence of Gram-positive infections in this group.

Susceptibility testing of Propionibacterium acnes comparing agar dilution with E test

Propionibacterium acnes has been identified as a significant agent of nosocomial infections, including endophthalmitis. Data concerning susceptibility of P. acnes to newer beta-lactam antibiotics and fluoroquinolones are limited. Recent reports suggest that quinolones have activity against these organisms sufficient to warrant further study. We undertook a study to select appropriate antimicrobial agents for use in a rabbit model of P. acnes endophthalmitis. We compared the antibiotic susceptibilities of P. acnes by using the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards method of agar dilution with the E test. Thirteen clinical isolates obtained from eye specimens and three American Type Culture Collection control strains were tested against 14 antibiotics. All the clinical isolates were susceptible by both methods to piperacillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, ampicillin-sulbactam, ticarcillin-clavulanate, cefotaxime, cefotetan, ceftriaxone, cefoxitin, and imipenem in addition to clindamycin but were resistant to metronidazole. The clinical P. acnes isolates also displayed high-level susceptibility to ciprofloxacin, sparfloxacin, and ofloxacin. Almost all the P. acnes strains demonstrated E-test MICs within 2 dilutions of the MICs observed by the agar dilution method. Those few strains for which discrepancies were noted exhibited E-test susceptibilities three- to fivefold dilutions lower than the agar dilution method susceptibilities but only with ampicillin-sulbactam, ticarcillin-clavulanate, and/or clindamycin. On the basis of our study, all of clinical eye isolates were susceptible to these newer antimicrobial agents and the two methods demonstrated similar susceptibility patterns.