Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1986 Aug;24(2):181–185. doi: 10.1128/jcm.24.2.181-185.1986

Predicting the susceptibility of anaerobes to cefoperazone, cefotaxime, and cefoxitin with the thioglycolate broth disk procedure.

R J Zabransky, R J Birk, T A Kurzynski, K L Toohey
PMCID: PMC268871  PMID: 3745418

Abstract

A variety of clinical anaerobic isolates were tested against cefoperazone (216 strains), cefoxitin (120 strains), and cefotaxime (120 strains) by the thioglycolate anaerobic broth disk method, and the results were compared with the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards reference agar dilution method. The broth disk and reference breakpoint concentrations were as follows: cefoperazone, 60 and 64 or 30 and 32 micrograms/ml; cefotaxime, 30 and 32 micrograms/ml; cefoxitin, 18 and 16 micrograms/ml, respectively. Discrepant results were retested to obtain a mode. There was 99% agreement between the broth disk and reference methods for cefotaxime, 98% for cefoperazone with 60- and 64-micrograms/ml breakpoints and 91% with 30- and 32-micrograms/ml breakpoints, and 75% for cefoxitin. All but one of the strains that produced false susceptibility results by broth disk were members of the Bacteroides fragilis group, 1 with cefoperazone using the 60-micrograms/ml concentration, 14 with cefoperazone at the 30-micrograms/ml concentration, and 27 with cefoxitin. One strain of Clostridium difficile produced false susceptibility results to cefoperazone at the 30-micrograms/ml concentration. The lack of agreement between the broth disk and reference methods with cefoxitin may be a reflection of the number of isolates at the 16-micrograms/ml level and that the broth disk breakpoint was slightly higher than this concentration. Increased incubation time did not improve the results significantly.

Full text

PDF
181

Selected References

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

  1. Baron E. J., Bruckner D. A. Comparison of susceptibilities of anaerobic bacteria determined by agar dilution and by a microbroth method. Rev Infect Dis. 1984 Mar-Apr;6 (Suppl 1):S249–S253. doi: 10.1093/clinids/6.supplement_1.s249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barry A. L., Packer R. R. Determination of susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria to cefotetan and cefoxitin by the thioglycolate disk elution method. J Clin Microbiol. 1984 Nov;20(5):912–916. doi: 10.1128/jcm.20.5.912-916.1984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. Cuchural G. J., Jr, Tally F. P., Jacobus N. V., Marsh P. K., Mayhew J. W. Cefoxitin inactivation by Bacteroides fragilis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Dec;24(6):936–940. doi: 10.1128/aac.24.6.936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hansen S. L. Variation in susceptibility patterns of species within the Bacteroides fragilis group. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Apr;17(4):686–690. doi: 10.1128/aac.17.4.686. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hanson C. W., Martin W. J. Modified agar dilution method for rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Mar;13(3):383–388. doi: 10.1128/aac.13.3.383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hauser K. J., Johnston J. A., Zabransky R. J. Economical agar dilution technique for susceptibility testing of anaerobes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1975 May;7(5):712–714. doi: 10.1128/aac.7.5.712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jenkins S. G., Birk R. J., Zabransky R. J. Differences in susceptibilities of species of the Bacteroides fragilis group to several beta-lactam antibiotics: indole production as an indicator of resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1982 Oct;22(4):628–634. doi: 10.1128/aac.22.4.628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jorgensen J. H., Redding J. S., Howell A. W. Evaluation of broth disk elution methods for susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria with the newer beta-lactam antibiotics. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Mar;23(3):545–550. doi: 10.1128/jcm.23.3.545-550.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kaye D., Kobasa W., Kaye K. Susceptibilities of anaerobic bacteria to cefoperazone and other antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Jun;17(6):957–960. doi: 10.1128/aac.17.6.957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kurzynski T. A., Yrios J. W., Helstad A. G., Field C. R. Aerobically incubated thioglycolate broth disk method for antibiotic susceptibility testing of anaerobes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Oct;10(4):727–732. doi: 10.1128/aac.10.4.727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Rosenblatt J. E. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Rev Infect Dis. 1984 Mar-Apr;6 (Suppl 1):S242–S248. doi: 10.1093/clinids/6.supplement_1.s242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rosenblatt J. E., Murray P. R., Sonnenwirth A. C., Joyce J. L. Comparison of anaerobic susceptibility results obtained by different methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1979 Mar;15(3):351–355. doi: 10.1128/aac.15.3.351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rotilie C. A., Fass R. J., Prior R. B., Perkins R. L. Microdilution technique for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1975 Mar;7(3):311–315. doi: 10.1128/aac.7.3.311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sutter V. L., Kwok Y., Finegold S. M. Susceptibility of Bacteroides fragilis to six antibiotics determined by standardized antimicrobial disc susceptibility testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1973 Feb;3(2):188–193. doi: 10.1128/aac.3.2.188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. West S. E., Wilkins T. D. Vaspar broth-disk procedure for antibiotic susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Feb;17(2):288–291. doi: 10.1128/aac.17.2.288. [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]
  18. Wilkins T. D., Thiel T. Modified broth-disk method for testing the antibiotic susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1973 Mar;3(3):350–356. doi: 10.1128/aac.3.3.350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES