Skip Navigation


JAC Advance Access originally published online on March 1, 2007
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2007 59(5):913-918; doi:10.1093/jac/dkm040
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
59/5/913    most recent
dkm040v1
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sundqvist, M.
Right arrow Articles by Kahlmeter, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sundqvist, M.
Right arrow Articles by Kahlmeter, G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Effect of excluding duplicate isolates of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus in a 14 year consecutive database

Martin Sundqvist1,2,* and Gunnar Kahlmeter1,2

1 Department of Clinical Microbiology, Central Hospital, Varendsgatan 8, Växjö, Sweden 2 Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden

Received 15 November 2006; returned 12 December 2006; revised 20 January 2007; accepted 29 January 2007


* Corresponding author. Tel: +46-470-587478; Fax: +46-470-587455; E-mail: martin.sundqvist{at}ltkronoberg.se

Objectives: It is recommended that duplicate isolates are excluded when reporting resistance rates. The rationale for this is that failing to do so will yield falsely high resistance rates. We analysed a 14 year consecutive database of Escherichia coli (n = 62 380) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 28 178) using various cut-off algorithms to determine the importance of excluding duplicates and principal differences between the bacteria.

Methods: Susceptibility testing was performed according to the Swedish Reference Group for Antibiotics guidelines. Duplicates were excluded on the basis of species, individual and time (exclusion cut-offs of 7, 14, 30, 45, 90, 180, 270 and 365 days) from the first isolate.

Results: Although 30% of the isolates were excluded using a 365 day exclusion algorithm, the effects on resistance rates of excluding duplicates were small. Irrespective of cut-off, resistance in S. aureus decreased when duplicates were excluded. Using 7–30 days cut-offs, resistance in E. coli decreased or was not affected, whereas higher resistance rates were obtained when exclusion was based on a 365 day cut-off. Fluoroquinolone resistance was a clear exception to this rule.

Conclusions: Although the effect of exclusion of duplicates was minor, we suggest that exclusion cut-offs should match the study timeline. The data presented on E. coli, from urinary tract infections, and S. aureus, from skin and soft tissue infections, suggest that E. coli infection, >90 days after the first culture, is mainly caused by new less-resistant strains. Patients with S. aureus continue to be colonized with the same strain.

Keywords: antimicrobial resistance , surveillance , urinary tract infections , skin and soft tissue infections


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
M. Sundqvist, P. Geli, D. I. Andersson, M. Sjolund-Karlsson, A. Runehagen, H. Cars, K. Abelson-Storby, O. Cars, and G. Kahlmeter
Little evidence for reversibility of trimethoprim resistance after a drastic reduction in trimethoprim use
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., February 1, 2010; 65(2): 350 - 360.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



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.