Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-rtmr9 Total loading time: 0.275 Render date: 2021-06-13T15:30:43.716Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Susceptibility Testing Today: Myth, Reality, and New Direction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Charles W. Stratton
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee

Extract

Recent concerns about the clinical relevance of susceptibility testing echo those expressed previously by a number of authors.’-” These concerns are well founded and are perhaps even more important today because of the proliferation of new antibiotics and the changes in reimbursement philosophy.” Ultimately, the question becomes that raised by David Greenwood: “In vitro veritas?” The following discussion will review the role of susceptibility testing in clinical medicine with emphasis on myth versus reality. In addition, new directions for susceptibility testing that promise increased clinical relevance will be covered.

Type
Special Sections
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1.MacLowry, JD, Witebsky, FG: Critical reflections on current problems associated with susceptibility testing and monitoring of antimicrobial therapy. Antimicrobic Newsletter 1987; 4:7781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Greenwood, D: In vitro Veritas? Antimicrobial susceptibility tests and their clinical relevance. J Infect Dis 1981; 144:380385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Sanders, WE, Sanders, CC: Do in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility tests accurately predict therapeutic responsiveness in infected patients? in Lorian, V (ed): Significance of Medical Microbiology in the Care of Infected Patients, Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1982, pp 325340.Google Scholar
4.Washington, JA II: Discrepancies between In vitro activity of and in vivo response to antimicrobial agents. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1983; 1:2531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Ernest, JD, Sande, MA: In vitro susceptibility testing and the outcome of treatment of infection, in Root, RK, Sande, MA (eds): New Dimensions in Antimicrobial Therapy. New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1984, pp 293311.Google Scholar
6.Stratton, CW: Susceptibility testing revisited, in Stafenini, M, Gorstein, E, Eink, LM (eds): Progress in Clinical Pathology, vol IX. New York, Grune & Stratton, Inc, 1983, pp 6667.Google Scholar
7Maug, TH II: A new wave of antibiotics builds. Science 1981; 214:11251128.Google Scholar
8Inglehart, JK: The new era of prospective payment for hospitals. N Engl J Med 1983; 308:226.Google Scholar
9Eliopoulos, GM, Gardella, A, Moellering, RC: In vitro activity of ciprofloxacin, a new carboxyquinolone antimicrobial agent. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 25:331335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Reeves, DS, Bywater, MJ, Holt, HA, et al: In vitro studies with ciprofloxacin, a new 4-quinolone compound. J Antimicrob Chemother 1984; 13:333346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Foster, J, Lentino, JR. Strodtman, R, et al: Comparison of in vitro activity of quinolone antibiotics and vancomycin against gentamicin- and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by time-kill kinetic studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 30:823827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Stratton, CW, Liu, C, Weeks, LS: Activity of LY 146032 compared with that of methicillin, cefazolin, cefamandole, cefuroxime, ciprofloxacin, and vancomycin against staphylococci as determined by kill-kinetic studies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987: 31:12101215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.LeBel, M, Vallee, F, Bergeron, MG: Tissue penetration of ciprofloxacin after single and multiple doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986: 29:501505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Righter, J: Ciprofloxacin treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 20:595597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Wood, MJ, Logan, MN: Ciprofloxacin for soft tissue infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1986; 18(suppl D): 159164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Norden, CW, Shinners, H: Ciprofloxacin as therapy for experimental osteomyelitis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Infect Dis 1985; 151:291294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Norden, CW, Keleti, E: Experimental osteomyelitis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Infect Dis 1980; 141:7175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Norden, CW, Shaffer, MA: Activities ot tobramycin and azlocillin alone and in combination against experimental osteomyelitis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982; 21:6265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Desplaces, N, Acar, JE: New quinolones in the treatment of joint and bone infections. Rev Infect Dis 1988; 10(suppl 1):S179S183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Fong, IW, Ledbetter, WH, Vanderbroucke, AC, et al: Ciprofloxacin concentrations in bone and muscle after oral dosing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 29:405408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Bauernfeind, A, Holl, A, Petermuller, C: Uptake of 4-quinolones into inorganic bone and antibacterial activity in the bone [abstract no. 749], in Program and Abstracts of the Fourth Mediterranean Congress on Chemotherapy. Rhodos, 1984.Google Scholar
22Norden, CW: Lessons learned from animal models of osteomyelitis. Rev, Infect Dis 1988; 10:103110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Norden, CW, Shinners, E, Niedereitter, K: Clindamycin treatment of experimental chronic osteomyelitis due to Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis 1986; 153:956959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Norden, CW, Keleti, E: Treatment of experimental staphylococcal osteomyelitis with rifampin and trimethoprim, alone and in combination. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1980; 17:591594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Easmon, CSF, Crane, JP: Uptake of ciprofloxacin by human neutrophils. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 16:6773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Yu, VL, Kroboth, FJ, Brown, A, et al: Legionnaires' disease: A new clinical perspective from a prospective pneumonia study. Am J Med 1982: 73:357361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Vilde, JL. Dournon, E, Rajagopalan, P: Inhibition of Legionella pneumophila multiplication within human macrophages by antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 30:743748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Edelstein, PH, Calarco, K, Yasui, VK: Antimicrobial therapy of experimentally induced Legionnaires' disease in guinea pigs. Am Rev Respir Dis 1984; 130:849856.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Ruckdeschel, G, Ehret, W, Ahl, A: Susceptibility of Legionella spp to quinolone derivatives and related organic acids. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1984; 3:373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Bergogne-Berezin, E, Berthelot, G, Even, P, et al: Penetration of ciprofloxacin into bronchial secretions. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986; 5:197200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Fitzgeorge, RB, Gibson, DH, Jepras, R, et al: Studies or ciprofloxacin therapy of experimental Legionnaires disease. J Infect 1985; 10: 194203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Havlichek, D. Pohlod, D, Saravolatz, L: Comparison of ciprofloxacin and rifampin in experimental Legionella pneumophila pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987: 20:875881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Winter, JH, McCartney, C, Bingham, J, et al: Ciprofloxacin in the treatment of severe Legionnaires' disease. Rev Infect Dis 1988; 10(suppl 1):S218S219.Google Scholar
34.Cheruiu, CE, Corrado, ML, Nair, SR, et al: Treatment of gram-negative bacillary meningitis: Role of the new cephalosporin antibiotics. Rev Infect Dis 1982; 4(suppl 1):S453S464.Google Scholar
35.Bradshir, RW: Relapse of gram-negative bacillary meningitis after cefotaxime therapy. JAMA 1982: 248:12141218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Eng, RHK, Cherubin, C. Smith, SM, et al: Examination of gram-negative bacilli from meningitis patients who failed or relapsed on moxalactam therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 26:850856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Eng, RHK, Cherubin, CE, J-C, Pechere, et al: Treatment failures of cefotaxime and latamoxef in meningitis caused by Enterobacter and Serratia spp. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 20:903911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards: Methods for determining bactericidal activity of antimicrobial agents; Proposed Guideline M26P. Villanova, Pennsylvania, National Committee for Clinical Laboratory-Standards, 1987.Google Scholar
39.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards: Reference agar dilution procedure for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Approved standard Mll-A. Villanova, Pennsylvania, National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 1985.Google Scholar
40.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards: Alternative methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Proposed guideline M 17-P. Villanova, Pennsylvania, National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 1985.Google Scholar
41.Stratton, CW, Weeks, LS, Aldridge, KE: Comparison of kill-kinetic studies with agar and broth microdilution methods for determination of antimicrobial activity of selected agents against members of the Bacteroides fragilis group. J Clin Microbiol 1987; 25:645649.Google ScholarPubMed
42.Joiner, K, Lower, B, Dzink, J, et al: Comparative efficacy of 10 antimicrobial agents in experimental infections with Bacteroides fragilis. J Infect Dis 1982; 145:561568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Bartlett, JG, Louie, TJ, Gorbach, SL, et al: Therapeutic efficacy of 29 antimicrobial regimens in experimental intra-abdominal sepsis. Rev Infect Dis 1981; 3:535542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.Thadepalli, HS, Gorbach, SL, Bartlett, JG; Apparent failure of chloramphenicol in the treatment of anaerobic infections. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 1977; 22:421426.Google Scholar
45.Miles, AA, Misra, SS: The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. J Hyg 1938; 38:732748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Stratton, CW: The serum bactericidal test. Clin Microbiol Rev 1988; 1:1926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Stratton, CW, Weinstein, MP, Reller, LB: Correlation of serum bactericidal activity with antimicrobial agent level and minimal bactericidal concentration. J Infect Dis 1982; 145:160168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48.Mario, JM, Bartlett, RC: Laboratory evaluation of the serum dilution test in serious Staphylococcus infection. Am J Clin Pathol 1983; 80:176181.Google Scholar
49.Soulier, JP. Klastersky, J: Significance of serum bactericidal activity in gram-negative bacteremia in patients with and without granulocytopenia. Am J Med 1984; 76:429435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50.Weinstein, MP, Stratton, CW, Ackley, A, et al: Multiceuter collaborative evaluation of a standardized serum bactericidal test as a prognostic indicator of infective endocarditis. Am J Med 1984; 78:262269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51.Weinstein, MP, Stratton, CW, Hawley, HB. et al: Multiceuter collaborative evaluation of a standardized serum bactericidal test as a predictor of the therapeutic efficacy in acute and chronic osteomyelitis. Am J Med 1987; 83:218222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52.Briceland, LL, Pasko, MT, Mylotte, JM: Serum bactericidal rate as measure of antibiotic interactions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31:679685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53.Barriere, SL, Kapusnik, JE, Ely, E, et al: Analysis of a new method to detect antibacterial synergy: Area under the bactericidal titer curve. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 16:4960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54.Barriere, SL, Ozasa, DC, Mordenti, J: Assessment of serum bactericidal activity after administration of cefoperazone, cefotaxime, ceftizoxime and moxalactam to healthy subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 28:5557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Susceptibility Testing Today: Myth, Reality, and New Direction
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Susceptibility Testing Today: Myth, Reality, and New Direction
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Susceptibility Testing Today: Myth, Reality, and New Direction
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *