Simpson I, Durodie J, Knott S, Shea B, Wilson J, Machka K
Microbiology Research, SmithKline Beecham, Betchworth, Surrey, United Kingdom. 106650,
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 May;36(5):1361-5. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.5.1361-1365.1998.
Amoxicillin-clavulanate (Augmentin), as a combination of two active agents, poses extra challenges over single agents in establishing clinically relevant breakpoints for in vitro susceptibility tests. Hence, reported differences in amoxicillin-clavulanate percent susceptibilities among Escherichia coli isolates may reflect localized resistance problems and/or methodological differences in susceptibility testing and breakpoint criteria. The objectives of the present study were to determine the effects of (i) methodology, e.g., those of the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) and the Deutsche Industrie Norm-Medizinische Mikrobiologie (DIN), (ii) country of origin (Spain, France, and Germany), and (iii) site of infection (urinary tract, intra-abdominal sepsis, or other site[s]) upon the incidence of susceptibility to amoxicillin-clavulanate in 185 clinical isolates of E. coli. Cefuroxime and cefotaxime were included for comparison. The use of NCCLS methodology resulted in different distribution of amoxicillin-clavulanate MICs than that obtained with the DIN methodology, a difference highlighted by the 10% more strains found to be within the 8- to 32-microg/ml MIC range. This difference reflects the differing amounts of clavulanic acid present. NCCLS and DIN methodologies also produce different MIC distributions for cefotaxime but not for cefuroxime. Implementation of NCCLS and DIN breakpoints produced markedly different incidences of strains that were found to be susceptible, intermediate or resistant to amoxicillin-clavulanate. A total of 86.5% strains were found to be susceptible to amoxicillin-clavulanate by the NCCLS methodology, whereas only 43.8% were found to be susceptible by the DIN methodology. Similarly, 4.3% of the strains were found to be resistant by NCCLS guidelines compared to 21.1% by the DIN guidelines. The use of DIN breakpoints resulted in a fivefold-higher incidence of strains categorized as resistant to cefuroxime. There were no marked differences due to country of origin upon the MIC distributions for amoxicillin-clavulanate, cefuroxime, or cefotaxime, as determined with the NCCLS guidelines. Isolates from urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections were generally more resistant to amoxicillin-clavulanate than were isolates from other sites of infection.
阿莫西林-克拉维酸(安灭菌)作为两种活性剂的组合,在为体外药敏试验确定临床相关断点方面比单一药物带来了更多挑战。因此,报道的大肠杆菌分离株中阿莫西林-克拉维酸药敏率的差异可能反映了局部耐药问题和/或药敏试验及断点标准方面的方法学差异。本研究的目的是确定(i)方法学,例如美国国家临床实验室标准委员会(NCCLS)和德国工业标准-医学微生物学(DIN)的方法学,(ii)来源国(西班牙、法国和德国),以及(iii)感染部位(尿路、腹腔内败血症或其他部位)对185株临床分离大肠杆菌对阿莫西林-克拉维酸药敏率的影响。同时纳入头孢呋辛和头孢噻肟进行比较。使用NCCLS方法学得到的阿莫西林-克拉维酸最低抑菌浓度(MIC)分布与使用DIN方法学得到的不同,在8至32微克/毫升MIC范围内多发现10%的菌株这一差异凸显了这种不同。这种差异反映了克拉维酸含量的不同。NCCLS和DIN方法学对头孢噻肟也产生不同的MIC分布,但对头孢呋辛则不然。实施NCCLS和DIN断点标准后,发现对阿莫西林-克拉维酸敏感、中介或耐药的菌株发生率明显不同。采用NCCLS方法学,共发现86.5%的菌株对阿莫西林-克拉维酸敏感,而采用DIN方法学仅发现43.8%敏感。同样,按照NCCLS指南,4.3%的菌株耐药,而按照DIN指南则为21.1%。使用DIN断点标准导致分类为对头孢呋辛耐药的菌株发生率高出五倍。按照NCCLS指南确定,来源国对阿莫西林-克拉维酸、头孢呋辛或头孢噻肟的MIC分布没有明显差异。来自尿路和腹腔内感染的分离株通常比来自其他感染部位的分离株对阿莫西林-克拉维酸更耐药。