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 (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Livermore, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Warner, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Livermore, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Warner, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2001) 48, 452-454
© 2001 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Correspondence

Susceptibility testing with linezolid by different methods, in relation to published ‘general breakpoints’

J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 48: 452–454

D. M. Livermore,*, S. Mushtaq and M. Warner

Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring & Reference Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HT, UK

Sir,

Susceptibility testing with linezolid ought to be straightforward, since its MIC distributions are narrow, spanning only three or four doubling dilutions. Nevertheless, interpretative problems arise because several agencies have proposed breakpoints of 2 mg/L (Table 1Go), whereas some workers find MICs of 4 mg/L for many staphylococci and enterococci, including even control strains.1,2 The potential for confusion is exacerbated, especially in surveys (where MICs are most likely to be . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Acknowledgements

Notes

References


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
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
L. M. Boak, J. Li, C. R. Rayner, and R. L. Nation
Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Factors Influencing Emergence of Resistance to Linezolid in an In Vitro Model
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., April 1, 2007; 51(4): 1287 - 1292.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
A. P. R. Wilson, J. A. Cepeda, S. Hayman, T. Whitehouse, M. Singer, and G. Bellingan
In vitro susceptibility of Gram-positive pathogens to linezolid and teicoplanin and effect on outcome in critically ill patients
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., August 1, 2006; 58(2): 470 - 473.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
C. Buerger, N. Plock, P. Dehghanyar, C. Joukhadar, and C. Kloft
Pharmacokinetics of unbound linezolid in plasma and tissue interstitium of critically ill patients after multiple dosing using microdialysis.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., July 1, 2006; 50(7): 2455 - 2463.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
D. C. Draghi, D. J. Sheehan, P. Hogan, and D. F. Sahm
In Vitro Activity of Linezolid against Key Gram-Positive Organisms Isolated in the United States: Results of the LEADER 2004 Surveillance Program
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., December 1, 2005; 49(12): 5024 - 5032.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
D. Honeybourne, C. Tobin, G. Jevons, J. Andrews, and R. Wise
Intrapulmonary penetration of linezolid
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., June 1, 2003; 51(6): 1431 - 1434.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]