Skip to main content
. 2023 Aug 10;4(3):102512. doi: 10.1016/j.xpro.2023.102512

Table 2.

Predictive accuracy of discordant MICs derived from AST in CAMHB vs. DMEM in Gram-positive and Gram-negative murine sepsis models1

MIC values (μg/mL)
Mouse Survivors CAMHB vs. DMEM Predicted/Actual
Pathogen/Antibiotic CAMHB DMEM
Gram-positive

 MRSA USA300
  Ceftriaxone 256 R 8 S 10/10 R to S
  Ertapenem 8 R 2 S 9/10 R to S
  Piperacillin/Tazobactam 64/4 R 4/4 S 8/10 R to S
 MRSA MT3302
  Ceftriaxone 64 R 8 S 8/10 R to S
  Cephalexin 128 R 8 S 6/10 R to S
  Piperacillin/Tazobactam 64/4 R 4/4 S 8/10 R to S
 MSSA Newman
  Cephalexin 32 R 4 S 8/10 R to S

Gram-negative

 A. baumannii 19606
  Colistin 0.5 S 4 R 5/10 S to I/R
 E. cloacae 13047
  Ceftriaxone 4 R 0.25 S 7/10 R to S
 K. pneumoniae 13883
  Colistin 0.25 S 16 R 3/10 S to R
 K. pneumoniae MT3325
  Tetracycline 4 S 16 R 5/10 S to I/R
 P. aeruginosa 10145
  Colistin 0.5 S 8 R 2/10 S to R
 S. Typhimurium 14028
  Streptomycin 16 I 4 S 9/10 I to S

MICs and susceptibility designations were determined by broth microdilution in CAMHB and DMEM.16,17,18Virulence assays: discordant MICs derived from AST in CAMHB and DMEM were tested for diagnostic accuracy in murine sepsis models (n = 10).10,19CAMHB vs. DMEM Predicted/Actual: the susceptibility designations denote the CAMHB predicted susceptibility vs. the DMEM predicted and actual clinical outcomes. S, susceptible; I, intermediate; R, resistant.