Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fass, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Barnishan, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fass, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Barnishan, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2001) 48, 609-615
© 2001 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Comparison of antimicrobial in vitro activities against Streptococcus pneumoniae independent of MIC susceptibility breakpoints using MIC frequency distribution curves, scattergrams and linear regression analyses

Robert J. Fass,* and Jean Barnishan

Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine and Public Health, Columbus, OH 43210, USA

Comparing in vitro activities of antimicrobial agents against Streptococcus pneumoniae using per cent susceptible to recommended MIC breakpoints is not optimal. In this study, MICs of penicillin G, ampicillin/sulbactam, ceftriaxone, cefuroxime, erythromycin, tetracycline, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, trovafloxacin and moxifloxacin were determined for 646 strains. Drug activities were compared using MIC frequency distribution curves, scattergrams and linear regression analyses of MICs (log2). MIC frequency distributions did not always correspond to recommended breakpoints for distinguishing susceptible, intermediate and resistant strains. Penicillin G, ampicillin/sulbactam and ceftriaxone had similar activities and were each c. 1–1.5 dilution steps more active than cefuroxime. For all ß-lactam drug pairs, there was a high correlation of MICs with regression line slopes (a '1) and coefficients of determination (R2 = 0.90–0.97). Although ß-lactam-resistant strains were more likely to be resistant to erythromycin, tetracycline and/or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole than were ß-lactam-susceptible strains, MIC correlations were relatively poor (R2 = 0.14–0.46), as they were when the non-ß-lactam drugs were compared with each other (R2 = 0.10–0.25). Trovafloxacin and moxifloxacin were each c. 2.5 dilution steps more active than ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin. There was no correlation of quinolone MICs with MICs of any other drug class (R2 0.02). Among the quinolones, however, there was a high correlation of MICs with a '1 and R2 = 0.81–0.92. With the quinolone drug pairs, lines of best fit were second-order polynomial equations, consistent with a dissociation of low level resistance mechanisms. In summary, ß-lactam and quinolone MICs were predictable within drug classes and testing multiple derivatives within each class is probably not necessary. Although there was some relationship between ß-lactam, erythromycin, tetracycline and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole MICs, predictability of MICs between drug classes was poor. There was no relationship between quinolone MICs and MICs of any of the other drugs tested.

* Corresponding author. University Hospitals Clinics, 456 West 10 Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. Tel: +1-614-293-8732; Fax: +1-614-293-5240; E-mail: fass.1{at}osu.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.