Volume 43, no. 10, p. 2504–2509, 1999. In applying cefuroxime breakpoints to interpret susceptibility data for cefaclor, cefixime, cefprozil and loracarbef and trovafloxacin breakpoints to interpret susceptibility data for moxifloxacin, we did not adhere to NCCLS interpretative standards (M100-S9, 1999), Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Instructions to Authors, and the NCCLS recommendations which state that a pneumococcal isolate that is susceptible to penicillin can be considered susceptible to cefaclor, cefixime, cefprozil, and loracarbef for approved indications. Therefore, using these interpretative standards, the 78.7% of our isolates that were penicillin susceptible would be also considered susceptible to cefaclor, cefixime, cefprozil, and loracarbef. Thus, in Table 1 the percentages of isolates susceptible to these four beta-lactams should be 78.7%, and in Table 2 100% of the penicillin-susceptible isolates should be listed as susceptible to these four agents. The interpretations for moxifloxacin, using recently recommended FDA breakpoints for this compound, would be unchanged; NCCLS recommendations for moxifloxacin have not been made to date.
Page 2506, Table 3: the data for cefaclor and cefixime should read as shown below.
Table.
| Antimicrobial agent and penicillin resistance profile | No. of isolates for which the MIC (μg/ml) was:
|
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤0.03 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | ≥32 | |
| Cefaclor | |||||||||||
| S | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 | 354 | 336 | 112 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| I | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 48 | 37 | 13 | 5 | 54 | 0 |
| R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 71 | 0 |
| Cefixime | |||||||||||
| S | — | 137 | 197 | 547 | 39 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | — | — |
| I | — | 5 | 5 | 20 | 32 | 50 | 39 | 17 | 7 | — | — |
| R | — | 3 | 10 | 26 | 9 | 15 | 11 | 1 | 1 | — | — |