Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1992 Feb;36(2):343–347. doi: 10.1128/aac.36.2.343

Survey of Bacteroides fragilis group susceptibility patterns in Canada.

A M Bourgault 1, F Lamothe 1, D J Hoban 1, M T Dalton 1, P C Kibsey 1, G Harding 1, J A Smith 1, D E Low 1, H Gilbert 1
PMCID: PMC188439  PMID: 1605600

Abstract

The in vitro activities of penicillin, clindamycin, chloramphenicol, metronidazole, piperacillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, ticarcillin, ticarcillin-clavulanate, ampicillin-sulbactam, cefoxitin, ceftizoxime, cefotetan, moxalactam, and imipenem against 348 Bacteroides fragilis group isolates collected from six Canadian cities during 1990 were determined by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) agar dilution technique. All isolates were susceptible to chloramphenicol, metronidazole, piperacillin-tazobactam, and imipenem. For the other antibiotics tested, the following resistance rates were observed: penicillin, 97%; clindamycin, 9%; piperacillin, 19%; ticarcillin, 31%; ticarcillin-clavulanate, 0.28%; ampicillin-sulbactam, 0.85%; cefoxitin, 26%; ceftizoxime, 15%; cefotetan, 53%; and moxalactam, 17%. Susceptibility profiles to beta-lactam antibiotics varied among the different species tested: B. fragilis and Bacteroides vulgatus demonstrated lower resistance rates than Bacteroides distasonis and indole-positive Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron and Bacteroides ovatus. Ceftizoxime results should be interpreted cautiously, because the MICs obtained with the recommended NCCLS control strain were lower than expected.

Full text

PDF
343

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Aldridge K. E. Controversies in susceptibility testing of anaerobes. Clin Ther. 1987;10 (Suppl A):2–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldridge K. E., Sanders C. V. Antibiotic- and method-dependent variation in susceptibility testing results of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates. J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Dec;25(12):2317–2321. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.12.2317-2321.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aldridge K. E., Wexler H. M., Sanders C. V., Finegold S. M. Comparison of in vitro antibiograms of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates: differences in resistance rates in two institutions because of differences in susceptibility testing methodology. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Jan;34(1):179–181. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.1.179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Appelbaum P. C., Spangler S. K., Jacobs M. R. Susceptibilities of 394 Bacteroides fragilis, non-B. fragilis group Bacteroides species, and Fusobacterium species to newer antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Jun;35(6):1214–1218. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.6.1214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Appleman M. D., Heseltine P. N., Cherubin C. E. Epidemiology, antimicrobial susceptibility, pathogenicity, and significance of Bacteroides fragilis group organisms isolated at Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center. Rev Infect Dis. 1991 Jan-Feb;13(1):12–18. doi: 10.1093/clinids/13.1.12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bourgault A. M., Harding G. K., Smith J. A., Horsman G. B., Marrie T. J., Lamothe F. Survey of anaerobic susceptibility patterns in Canada. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 Nov;30(5):798–801. doi: 10.1128/aac.30.5.798. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Breuil J., Burnat C., Patey O., Dublanchet A. Survey of Bacteroides fragilis susceptibility patterns in France. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989 Jul;24(1):69–75. doi: 10.1093/jac/24.1.69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cuchural G. J., Jr, Tally F. P., Jacobus N. V., Aldridge K., Cleary T., Finegold S. M., Hill G., Iannini P., O'Keefe J. P., Pierson C. Susceptibility of the Bacteroides fragilis group in the United States: analysis by site of isolation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988 May;32(5):717–722. doi: 10.1128/aac.32.5.717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuchural G. J., Jr, Tally F. P., Jacobus N. V., Gorbach S. L., Aldridge K., Cleary T., Finegold S. M., Hill G., Iannini P., O'Keefe J. P. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of 1,292 isolates of the Bacteroides fragilis group in the United States: comparison of 1981 with 1982. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984 Aug;26(2):145–148. doi: 10.1128/aac.26.2.145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Finegold S. M. Susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. J Clin Microbiol. 1988 Jul;26(7):1253–1256. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.7.1253-1256.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. García-Rodríguez J. E., García-Sánchez J. E. Evolution of antimicrobial susceptibility in isolates of the Bacteroides fragilis group in Spain. Rev Infect Dis. 1990 Jan-Feb;12 (Suppl 2):S142–S151. doi: 10.1093/clinids/12.supplement_2.s142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldstein E. J., Citron D. M. Annual incidence, epidemiology, and comparative in vitro susceptibilities to cefoxitin, cefotetan, cefmetazole, and ceftizoxime of recent community-acquired isolates of the Bacteroides fragilis group. J Clin Microbiol. 1988 Nov;26(11):2361–2366. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.11.2361-2366.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jones R. N., Barry A. L., Fuchs P. C., Allen S. D. Ceftizoxime and cefoxitin susceptibility testing against anaerobic bacteria: comparison of results from three NCCLS methods and quality control recommendations for the reference agar dilution procedure. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1987 Oct;8(2):87–94. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(87)90154-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Tally F. P., Cuchural G. J., Jr, Jacobus N. V., Gorbach S. L., Aldridge K., Cleary T., Finegold S. M., Hill G., Iannini P., O'Keefe J. P. Nationwide study of the susceptibility of the Bacteroides fragilis group in the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985 Nov;28(5):675–677. doi: 10.1128/aac.28.5.675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wexler H. M., Finegold S. M. In vitro activity of cefotetan compared with that of other antimicrobial agents against anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988 Apr;32(4):601–604. doi: 10.1128/aac.32.4.601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wexler H. M., Molitoris E., Finegold S. M. Effect of beta-lactamase inhibitors on the activities of various beta-lactam agents against anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Jun;35(6):1219–1224. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.6.1219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wilkins T. D., Chalgren S. Medium for use in antibiotic susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Dec;10(6):926–928. doi: 10.1128/aac.10.6.926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES