测定单个菌落mic比测定耐药菌落比例更能灵敏地检测抗菌药物对抗菌药物敏感性的影响。

IF 2.2 4区 生物学 Q3 MICROBIOLOGY
Vergel Ledesma, Thibaut Vanbaelen, Zina Gestels, Nele Panis, Said Abdellati, Tessa de Block, Irith De Baetselier, Dorien Van den Bossche, Sheeba Santhini Manoharan-Basil, Chris Kenyon
{"title":"测定单个菌落mic比测定耐药菌落比例更能灵敏地检测抗菌药物对抗菌药物敏感性的影响。","authors":"Vergel Ledesma, Thibaut Vanbaelen, Zina Gestels, Nele Panis, Said Abdellati, Tessa de Block, Irith De Baetselier, Dorien Van den Bossche, Sheeba Santhini Manoharan-Basil, Chris Kenyon","doi":"10.1093/femsle/fnae104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ResistAZM randomized controlled trial found that the receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin, compared to ceftriaxone was not associated with an increase in the proportion of oral commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci with azithromycin resistance 14 days after treatment. We repeated the analyses by measuring the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of azithromycin and ceftriaxone for individual colonies of commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci at day 0 and day 14 in both arms. The receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone was associated with an increase in azithromycin MIC for both Neisseria spp. (P < 0.0001) and streptococci (P = 0.0076). Likewise, ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone monotherapy was associated with an increase in ceftriaxone MICs in Neisseria spp. (P = 0.0035). Whereas the proportion method failed to detect an association between the receipt of azithromycin and increased macrolide resistance, the MIC distribution method detected this effect. The MIC distribution method is thus a more sensitive method to assess the effect of antimicrobials on antimicrobial susceptibility.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The ResistAZM randomized controlled trial found that the receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin, compared to ceftriaxone was not associated with an increase in the proportion of oral commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci with azithromycin resistance 14 days after treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We repeated the analyses by measuring the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of azithromycin and ceftriaxone for individual colonies of commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci at day 0 and day 14 in both arms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone was associated with an increase in azithromycin MIC for both Neisseria spp. (P < 0.0001) and streptococci (P = 0.0076). Likewise, ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone monotherapy was associated with an increase in ceftriaxone MICs in Neisseria spp. (P = 0.0035).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Whereas the proportion method failed to detect an association between the receipt of azithromycin and increased macrolide resistance, the MIC distribution method detected this effect. The MIC distribution method is thus a more sensitive method to assess the effect of antimicrobials on antimicrobial susceptibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":12214,"journal":{"name":"Fems Microbiology Letters","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring individual colony MICs is a more sensitive method to detect the effect of antimicrobials on antimicrobial susceptibility than the proportion of colonies resistant.\",\"authors\":\"Vergel Ledesma, Thibaut Vanbaelen, Zina Gestels, Nele Panis, Said Abdellati, Tessa de Block, Irith De Baetselier, Dorien Van den Bossche, Sheeba Santhini Manoharan-Basil, Chris Kenyon\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/femsle/fnae104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The ResistAZM randomized controlled trial found that the receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin, compared to ceftriaxone was not associated with an increase in the proportion of oral commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci with azithromycin resistance 14 days after treatment. We repeated the analyses by measuring the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of azithromycin and ceftriaxone for individual colonies of commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci at day 0 and day 14 in both arms. The receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone was associated with an increase in azithromycin MIC for both Neisseria spp. (P < 0.0001) and streptococci (P = 0.0076). Likewise, ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone monotherapy was associated with an increase in ceftriaxone MICs in Neisseria spp. (P = 0.0035). Whereas the proportion method failed to detect an association between the receipt of azithromycin and increased macrolide resistance, the MIC distribution method detected this effect. The MIC distribution method is thus a more sensitive method to assess the effect of antimicrobials on antimicrobial susceptibility.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The ResistAZM randomized controlled trial found that the receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin, compared to ceftriaxone was not associated with an increase in the proportion of oral commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci with azithromycin resistance 14 days after treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We repeated the analyses by measuring the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of azithromycin and ceftriaxone for individual colonies of commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci at day 0 and day 14 in both arms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone was associated with an increase in azithromycin MIC for both Neisseria spp. (P < 0.0001) and streptococci (P = 0.0076). Likewise, ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone monotherapy was associated with an increase in ceftriaxone MICs in Neisseria spp. (P = 0.0035).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Whereas the proportion method failed to detect an association between the receipt of azithromycin and increased macrolide resistance, the MIC distribution method detected this effect. The MIC distribution method is thus a more sensitive method to assess the effect of antimicrobials on antimicrobial susceptibility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fems Microbiology Letters\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fems Microbiology Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnae104\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fems Microbiology Letters","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnae104","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:ResistAZM随机对照试验发现,与头孢曲松相比,接受头孢曲松/阿奇霉素治疗与口服共存奈瑟菌和链球菌在治疗后14天对阿奇霉素耐药的比例增加无关。方法:通过测定阿奇霉素和头孢曲松在第0天和第14天对两组共生奈瑟菌和链球菌单个菌落的最低抑菌浓度(mic),重复分析。结果:使用头孢曲松/阿奇霉素而不使用头孢曲松与两种奈瑟菌阿奇霉素MIC升高有关。结论:比例法未能检测到阿奇霉素使用与大环内酯类药物耐药性升高之间的关系,MIC分布法检测到了这种关系。因此,mic分布法是一种更敏感的方法来评估抗菌素对抗菌药物敏感性的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring individual colony MICs is a more sensitive method to detect the effect of antimicrobials on antimicrobial susceptibility than the proportion of colonies resistant.

The ResistAZM randomized controlled trial found that the receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin, compared to ceftriaxone was not associated with an increase in the proportion of oral commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci with azithromycin resistance 14 days after treatment. We repeated the analyses by measuring the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of azithromycin and ceftriaxone for individual colonies of commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci at day 0 and day 14 in both arms. The receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone was associated with an increase in azithromycin MIC for both Neisseria spp. (P < 0.0001) and streptococci (P = 0.0076). Likewise, ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone monotherapy was associated with an increase in ceftriaxone MICs in Neisseria spp. (P = 0.0035). Whereas the proportion method failed to detect an association between the receipt of azithromycin and increased macrolide resistance, the MIC distribution method detected this effect. The MIC distribution method is thus a more sensitive method to assess the effect of antimicrobials on antimicrobial susceptibility.

Background: The ResistAZM randomized controlled trial found that the receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin, compared to ceftriaxone was not associated with an increase in the proportion of oral commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci with azithromycin resistance 14 days after treatment.

Methods: We repeated the analyses by measuring the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of azithromycin and ceftriaxone for individual colonies of commensal Neisseria spp. and streptococci at day 0 and day 14 in both arms.

Results: The receipt of ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone was associated with an increase in azithromycin MIC for both Neisseria spp. (P < 0.0001) and streptococci (P = 0.0076). Likewise, ceftriaxone/azithromycin but not ceftriaxone monotherapy was associated with an increase in ceftriaxone MICs in Neisseria spp. (P = 0.0035).

Conclusions: Whereas the proportion method failed to detect an association between the receipt of azithromycin and increased macrolide resistance, the MIC distribution method detected this effect. The MIC distribution method is thus a more sensitive method to assess the effect of antimicrobials on antimicrobial susceptibility.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Fems Microbiology Letters
Fems Microbiology Letters 生物-微生物学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
112
审稿时长
1.9 months
期刊介绍: FEMS Microbiology Letters gives priority to concise papers that merit rapid publication by virtue of their originality, general interest and contribution to new developments in microbiology. All aspects of microbiology, including virology, are covered. 2019 Impact Factor: 1.987, Journal Citation Reports (Source Clarivate, 2020) Ranking: 98/135 (Microbiology) The journal is divided into eight Sections: Physiology and Biochemistry (including genetics, molecular biology and ‘omic’ studies) Food Microbiology (from food production and biotechnology to spoilage and food borne pathogens) Biotechnology and Synthetic Biology Pathogens and Pathogenicity (including medical, veterinary, plant and insect pathogens – particularly those relating to food security – with the exception of viruses) Environmental Microbiology (including ecophysiology, ecogenomics and meta-omic studies) Virology (viruses infecting any organism, including Bacteria and Archaea) Taxonomy and Systematics (for publication of novel taxa, taxonomic reclassifications and reviews of a taxonomic nature) Professional Development (including education, training, CPD, research assessment frameworks, research and publication metrics, best-practice, careers and history of microbiology) If you are unsure which Section is most appropriate for your manuscript, for example in the case of transdisciplinary studies, we recommend that you contact the Editor-In-Chief by email prior to submission. Our scope includes any type of microorganism - all members of the Bacteria and the Archaea and microbial members of the Eukarya (yeasts, filamentous fungi, microbial algae, protozoa, oomycetes, myxomycetes, etc.) as well as all viruses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信