头孢噻肟与头孢曲松对抗各种系统性感染病原菌的活性:一项前瞻性、多中心、比较、体外印度研究

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Ajitkumar A. Gondane, Dattatray B. Pawar
{"title":"头孢噻肟与头孢曲松对抗各种系统性感染病原菌的活性:一项前瞻性、多中心、比较、体外印度研究","authors":"Ajitkumar A. Gondane, Dattatray B. Pawar","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1772564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives  To determine the susceptibility of isolated pathogens with different samples collected from patients taking cefotaxime as compared with ceftriaxone. Methods   In vitro susceptibility study was conducted at microbiology laboratories of east (Bhubaneshwar), west (Ahmedabad), north (Delhi), and south (Srikakulam) India. Samples of treatment naïve patients with various clinical infections were included if they were positive for bacterial culture. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and zone of inhibitions (ZoIs) for each isolate were determined using Ezy MIC strip test and disk diffusion methods, respectively. Findings of MIC and ZoI were interpreted as per the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Appropriate statistical tests were used. Results  Four hundred clinical samples of urinary tract infection (42.75%), lower respiratory tract infection (20.75%), skin and soft tissue infection (16.75%), and sepsis (12.75%) were evaluated. Escherichia coli (47.75%) was the most common organism isolated followed by Klebsiella (26%), Salmonella (7.75%), and Proteus mirabilis (3.75%). The mean MIC values for E. coli , Klebsiella , Staphylococcus , Citrobacter koseri , and Serratia marcescens were found to be lower when treated with cefotaxime compared with ceftriaxone, although the difference was not statistically significant. However, cefotaxime produced significantly ( p  < 0.05) more ZoI for E. coli , Klebsiella , and Salmonella as compared with ceftriaxone. Conclusion  Cefotaxime has shown better sensitivity profile in terms of MIC and ZoI to most of the isolated organisms as compared with ceftriaxone and thus can be preferred for empirical treatment of such patients.","PeriodicalId":16149,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laboratory Physicians","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Activity of Cefotaxime versus Ceftriaxone against Pathogens Isolated from Various Systemic Infections: A Prospective, Multicenter, Comparative, In vitro Indian Study\",\"authors\":\"Ajitkumar A. Gondane, Dattatray B. Pawar\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0043-1772564\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objectives  To determine the susceptibility of isolated pathogens with different samples collected from patients taking cefotaxime as compared with ceftriaxone. Methods   In vitro susceptibility study was conducted at microbiology laboratories of east (Bhubaneshwar), west (Ahmedabad), north (Delhi), and south (Srikakulam) India. Samples of treatment naïve patients with various clinical infections were included if they were positive for bacterial culture. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and zone of inhibitions (ZoIs) for each isolate were determined using Ezy MIC strip test and disk diffusion methods, respectively. Findings of MIC and ZoI were interpreted as per the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Appropriate statistical tests were used. Results  Four hundred clinical samples of urinary tract infection (42.75%), lower respiratory tract infection (20.75%), skin and soft tissue infection (16.75%), and sepsis (12.75%) were evaluated. Escherichia coli (47.75%) was the most common organism isolated followed by Klebsiella (26%), Salmonella (7.75%), and Proteus mirabilis (3.75%). The mean MIC values for E. coli , Klebsiella , Staphylococcus , Citrobacter koseri , and Serratia marcescens were found to be lower when treated with cefotaxime compared with ceftriaxone, although the difference was not statistically significant. However, cefotaxime produced significantly ( p  < 0.05) more ZoI for E. coli , Klebsiella , and Salmonella as compared with ceftriaxone. Conclusion  Cefotaxime has shown better sensitivity profile in terms of MIC and ZoI to most of the isolated organisms as compared with ceftriaxone and thus can be preferred for empirical treatment of such patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Laboratory Physicians\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Laboratory Physicians\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1772564\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laboratory Physicians","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1772564","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

【摘要】目的比较头孢噻肟与头孢曲松患者不同样品分离病原菌的药敏情况。方法在印度东部(布巴内什瓦尔)、西部(艾哈迈达巴德)、北部(德里)和南部(斯里卡库拉姆)的微生物实验室进行体外药敏研究。治疗样本naïve患者的各种临床感染,如果他们是阳性的细菌培养。分别采用Ezy MIC条法和纸片扩散法测定各菌株的最低抑菌浓度(MIC)和抑制区(ZoIs)。MIC和ZoI的结果按照临床和实验室标准协会的指南进行解释。采用了适当的统计检验。结果共收集尿路感染(42.75%)、下呼吸道感染(20.75%)、皮肤软组织感染(16.75%)、脓毒症(12.75%)等临床病例400例。大肠杆菌(47.75%)最多,其次是克雷伯菌(26%)、沙门氏菌(7.75%)和奇异变形杆菌(3.75%)。与头孢曲松相比,头孢噻肟对大肠杆菌、克雷伯氏菌、葡萄球菌、克塞利柠檬酸杆菌和粘质沙雷氏菌的平均MIC值较低,但差异无统计学意义。与头孢曲松相比,头孢噻肟对大肠杆菌、克雷伯氏菌和沙门氏菌的ZoI含量显著高于头孢曲松(p < 0.05)。结论头孢噻肟对大多数分离菌的MIC和ZoI敏感性优于头孢曲松,可作为此类患者的经验治疗首选药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Activity of Cefotaxime versus Ceftriaxone against Pathogens Isolated from Various Systemic Infections: A Prospective, Multicenter, Comparative, In vitro Indian Study
Abstract Objectives  To determine the susceptibility of isolated pathogens with different samples collected from patients taking cefotaxime as compared with ceftriaxone. Methods   In vitro susceptibility study was conducted at microbiology laboratories of east (Bhubaneshwar), west (Ahmedabad), north (Delhi), and south (Srikakulam) India. Samples of treatment naïve patients with various clinical infections were included if they were positive for bacterial culture. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and zone of inhibitions (ZoIs) for each isolate were determined using Ezy MIC strip test and disk diffusion methods, respectively. Findings of MIC and ZoI were interpreted as per the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Appropriate statistical tests were used. Results  Four hundred clinical samples of urinary tract infection (42.75%), lower respiratory tract infection (20.75%), skin and soft tissue infection (16.75%), and sepsis (12.75%) were evaluated. Escherichia coli (47.75%) was the most common organism isolated followed by Klebsiella (26%), Salmonella (7.75%), and Proteus mirabilis (3.75%). The mean MIC values for E. coli , Klebsiella , Staphylococcus , Citrobacter koseri , and Serratia marcescens were found to be lower when treated with cefotaxime compared with ceftriaxone, although the difference was not statistically significant. However, cefotaxime produced significantly ( p  < 0.05) more ZoI for E. coli , Klebsiella , and Salmonella as compared with ceftriaxone. Conclusion  Cefotaxime has shown better sensitivity profile in terms of MIC and ZoI to most of the isolated organisms as compared with ceftriaxone and thus can be preferred for empirical treatment of such patients.
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
Journal of Laboratory Physicians
Journal of Laboratory Physicians MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
31 weeks
×
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