Advertisement

Drug Investigation

, Volume 4, Supplement 1, pp 1–6 | Cite as

In Vitro Susceptibility of Bacteroides fragilis Group Strains from Abscesses, Body Fluids and Wound/Tissue Sources

  • Kenneth E. Aldridge
Article

Summary

The in vitro activity of several antimicrobial agents was tested against over 1600 clinical isolates of the Bacteroides fragilis group obtained from abscesses, body fluids, and wound/tissue sources. Overall, isolates from body fluids tended to be slightly more resistant than those from abscesses or wounds/tissues. Regardless of isolate source, ceftizoxime was the most active cephalosporin tested, with resistance rates varying from 8 to 12%. Of the 3 cephamycin compounds tested, cefoxitin was considerably more active than cefotetan and cefmetazole against isolates from all 3 sources. Overall, the activities of piperacillin and mezlocillin were comparable, and each was superior to ticarcillin, with resistance rates of 7 to 12% vs 10 to 22%. Both carbapenems were highly active; however, imipenem was slightly more active than meropenem. The activity of clindamycin was similar against all 3 groups of isolates, with resistance rates of 10 to 11%. No isolates were resistant to metronidazole. B. fragilis species tended to be more susceptible to most antimicrobial agents compared with non-B. fragilis species. We conclude that species grouping is an important factor in susceptibility patterns of the B. fragilis group, whereas the source of isolates is relatively unimportant.

Keywords

Clindamycin Imipenem Meropenem Resistance Rate Piperacillin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldridge KE, Henderberg A, Schiro DD, Sanders CV. Susceptibility of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates to broad-spectrum β-lactams, clindamycin, and metronidazole: rates of resistance, cross-resistance, and importance of β-lactamase production. Advances in Therapy 5: 273–282, 1988Google Scholar
  2. Aldridge KE, Sanders CV. Antibiotic- and method-dependent variation in susceptibility testing results of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 25: 2317–2321, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldridge KE, Sanders CV, Janney A, Faro S, Marier RL. Comparison of the activities of penicillin G and new β-lactam antibiotics against clinical isolates of Bacteroides species. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 26: 1181–1188, 1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldridge KE, Wexler H, Sanders CV, Finegold SM. Comparison of antibiograms of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates: differences in resistance rates in two institutions because of differences in susceptibility testing methodology. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 179–181, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennion RS, Thompson JE, Baron EJ, Finegold SM. Gangrenous and perforated appendicitis with peritonitis: treatment and bacteriology. Clinical Therapeutics 12 (Suppl. C): 31–44, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennion RS, Thompson Jr JE, Baron EJ, Schmit PJ, Finegold SM. The use of single-agent antibacterial regimens in the treatment of advanced appendicitis with peritonitis. Drug Investigation (Suppl. 1): 7–12, 1992Google Scholar
  7. Brook I. Recovery of anaerobic bacteria from clinical specimens in 12 years at two military hospitals. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 26: 1181–1188, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuchural Jr GJ, Tally FP, Jacobus NV, Aldridge K, Cleary T, et al. Susceptibility of the Bacteroides fragilis group in the United States: analysis by site of isolation. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 32: 717–722, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldstein EJC, Citron DM. Annual incidence, epidemiology, and comparative in vitro susceptibilities to cefoxitin, cefotetan, cefmetazole, and ceftizoxime to recent community-acquired isolates of the Bacteroides fragilis group. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 26: 2361–2366, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Alternative methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Proposed guidelines M17-P. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Villanova, PA, 1985Google Scholar
  11. Tally FP, Cuchural Jr GJ, Jacobus NV, Gorbach SL, Aldridge K, et al. Nationwide study of susceptibility of the Bacteroides fragilis group in the United States. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 28: 675–677, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth E. Aldridge
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineLouisiana State University Medical CenterNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations