Roberts Sally A, Shore Keith P, Paviour Susan D, Holland David, Morris Arthur J
Department of Microbiology, LabPlus, Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006 May;57(5):992-8. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkl052. Epub 2006 Feb 28.
Routine susceptibility testing of all anaerobic organisms is not advocated, but it is useful for laboratories to test periodically for anaerobic organisms and provide local susceptibility data to guide therapy. This study reports the national trend of antibiotic susceptibility of clinically significant anaerobes in New Zealand.
Clinical isolates were tested using standardized methods against a range of antibiotics commonly used to treat anaerobic infections. Susceptibility was determined using NCCLS criteria. The change in susceptibility trends between this study and earlier studies was measured by comparing the geometric mean of the MIC.
A total of 364 anaerobes were tested. Penicillin had poor activity against Bacteroides spp., Prevotella spp., Eubacterium spp., Clostridium tertium and Veillonella spp. In general, Fusobacterium spp., Bacteroides ureolyticus, Propionibacterium spp., Clostridium perfringens and anaerobic streptococci isolates, with the exception of Peptostreptococcus anaerobius, were penicillin susceptible. Amoxicillin/clavulanate showed good activity against most anaerobes, but resistance was seen with Bacteroides fragilis group and P. anaerobius isolates. Cefoxitin was more active than cefotetan, particularly against non-B. fragilis species, Eubacterium spp. and P. anaerobius. Meropenem and imipenem showed good activity against all anaerobes, with only 2 and 4% of Bacteroides spp., respectively, showing resistance. With the exception of Propionibacterium acnes isolates, which are predictably resistant, metronidazole was active against all anaerobes tested. There has been little change in susceptibility since 1997.
Metronidazole, cefoxitin, piperacillin/tazobactam and amoxicillin/clavulanate remain good empirical choices when anaerobes are expected in our setting. No clinically relevant changes in susceptibility over time were found.
不提倡对所有厌氧菌进行常规药敏试验,但实验室定期检测厌氧菌并提供当地药敏数据以指导治疗是有用的。本研究报告了新西兰临床上重要厌氧菌的全国性抗生素药敏趋势。
使用标准化方法对临床分离株进行一系列常用于治疗厌氧菌感染的抗生素的检测。根据美国国家临床实验室标准化委员会(NCCLS)标准确定药敏情况。通过比较最低抑菌浓度(MIC)的几何平均值来衡量本研究与早期研究之间药敏趋势的变化。
共检测了364株厌氧菌。青霉素对拟杆菌属、普雷沃菌属、真杆菌属、第三梭菌和韦荣球菌属的活性较差。一般来说,除不解糖消化链球菌外,具核梭杆菌属、解脲拟杆菌、丙酸杆菌属、产气荚膜梭菌和厌氧链球菌分离株对青霉素敏感。阿莫西林/克拉维酸对大多数厌氧菌显示出良好活性,但脆弱拟杆菌群和解糖消化链球菌分离株存在耐药情况。头孢西丁比头孢替坦更具活性,尤其是对非脆弱拟杆菌属物种、真杆菌属和解糖消化链球菌。美罗培南和亚胺培南对所有厌氧菌均显示出良好活性,分别仅有2%和4%的拟杆菌属显示耐药。除可预测耐药的痤疮丙酸杆菌分离株外,甲硝唑对所有测试厌氧菌均有活性。自1997年以来药敏情况变化不大。
在我们的环境中,当预计有厌氧菌感染时,甲硝唑、头孢西丁、哌拉西林/他唑巴坦和阿莫西林/克拉维酸仍是较好的经验性选择。未发现随着时间推移药敏有临床相关变化。