In vitro performance of cost differentiated ceftriaxone brands against Escherichia coli: insights from a tertiary referral hospital in Mbeya, Tanzania.
Anthony Nsojo, Christopher Mbotwa, Linus Rweyemamu, Godlove Mbwanji, Frank Wilson, Lutengano George, Davance Mwasomola, Clement N Mweya, Issakwisa Mwakyula
{"title":"<i>In vitro</i> performance of cost differentiated ceftriaxone brands against <i>Escherichia coli</i>: insights from a tertiary referral hospital in Mbeya, Tanzania.","authors":"Anthony Nsojo, Christopher Mbotwa, Linus Rweyemamu, Godlove Mbwanji, Frank Wilson, Lutengano George, Davance Mwasomola, Clement N Mweya, Issakwisa Mwakyula","doi":"10.1093/jacamr/dlae162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In Tanzania, ceftriaxone is one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics. However, there is quite a significant variation in cost for numerous ceftriaxone brands, leading to the perception that pricier options are more effective. Yet, limited empirical data support this perception.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five ceftriaxone brands with a wide price range were tested <i>in vitro</i> against a ceftriaxone-sensitive <i>Escherichia coli</i> clinical isolate using microdilution and spectrophotometry. Brands were evaluated across a spectrum of concentrations. Bacterial growth inhibition was measured using optical density. Analysis of variance was used to compare the bacterial optical densities among the brands.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All brands were comparable at all tested concentrations, with peak inhibition above 1.95 mg/L.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite significant price disparities, low-cost and high-cost ceftriaxone brands demonstrated similar <i>in vitro</i> performance against <i>E. coli</i>. This challenges the notion that higher-priced options offer better performance. Further, <i>in vivo</i> studies are recommended to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":14594,"journal":{"name":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","volume":"6 5","pages":"dlae162"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11472144/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlae162","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In Tanzania, ceftriaxone is one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics. However, there is quite a significant variation in cost for numerous ceftriaxone brands, leading to the perception that pricier options are more effective. Yet, limited empirical data support this perception.
Methods: Five ceftriaxone brands with a wide price range were tested in vitro against a ceftriaxone-sensitive Escherichia coli clinical isolate using microdilution and spectrophotometry. Brands were evaluated across a spectrum of concentrations. Bacterial growth inhibition was measured using optical density. Analysis of variance was used to compare the bacterial optical densities among the brands.
Results: All brands were comparable at all tested concentrations, with peak inhibition above 1.95 mg/L.
Conclusions: Despite significant price disparities, low-cost and high-cost ceftriaxone brands demonstrated similar in vitro performance against E. coli. This challenges the notion that higher-priced options offer better performance. Further, in vivo studies are recommended to validate these findings.