Table 1.
Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and interpretations for Campylobacter jejuni isolates from Patient #1, Patient #2 and the puppy belonging to Patient #1
| Antibiotic class | Antibiotic | MIC (Mμ/mL) Patient #1 |
Patient #2 | Puppy | Intermediate range (μg/mL) | Resistant range (μg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||
| Aminoglycosides | Gentamicina | >32 | >32 | >32 | N/A | ≥4 |
| Tobramycin b, c | >4 | >4 | > 4 | 8 | ≥16 | |
| β- | Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid b | 4/2 | 4/2 | 4/2 | 16/8 | ≥32/16 |
| Lactam | Ampicillin/sulbactam b, c | >8/4 | >8/4 | > 8/4 | 16/8 | ≥32/16 |
| combinations | Piperacillin/tazobactamb | 64/2 | 64/2 | 64/2 | 32/4–64/4 | ≥ 128/4 |
| Carbapenems | Ertapenemb | 0.25 | <0.12 | <0.12 | 1 | ≥ 2 |
| Imipenemb | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 2 | ≥4 | |
| Meropenemb | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 2 | ≥4 | |
| Cephems | Cefuroximeb, c, d | >4 | >4 | > 4 | 8–16 | ≥32 |
| Cefotaximeb | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | ≥4 | |
| Ceftazidimeb | 16 | 8 | 8 | 8 | ≥16 | |
| Ceftriaxoneb | 16 | 16 | 16 | 2 | ≥4 | |
| Cefepimeb | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4–8 | ≥16 | |
| Folate pathway antagonists | Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazoleb | >4/76 | >4/76 | >4/76 | N/A | ≥4/76 |
| Glycylcyclines | Tigecycline | ≤0.008 | ≤0.008 | ≤0.008 | N/A | N/A |
| Ketolides | Telithromycin a | >8 | >8 | > 8 | N/A | ≥8 |
| Lincosamides | Clindamycin a | 4 | 8 | 8 | N/A | ≥1 |
| Macrolides | Azithromycin a | >64 | >64 | > 64 | N/A | ≥0.5 |
| Erythromycin a | >64 | >64 | > 64 | N/A | ≥8 | |
| Tylosin | >16 | >16 | > 16 | N/A | N/A | |
| Monobactams | Aztreonamb | >16 | >16 | > 16 | 8 | ≥16 |
| Nitroimidazoles | Metronidazole e | >16 | >16 | > 16 | 16 | ≥32 |
| Phenicols | Chloramphenicol a | ≤2 | ≤2 | ≤2 | N/A | ≥32 |
| Florfenicol a | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | ≥8 | |
| Quinolones | Ciprofloxacin a | 16 | 16 | 16 | N/A | ≥1 |
| Levofloxacinb | >4 | >4 | > 4 | 1 | ≥2 | |
| Moxifloxacin e | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | ≥8 | |
| Nalidixic acid a | >64 | >64 | > 64 | N/A | ≥32 | |
| Tetracyclines | Minocyclineb | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | ≥16 |
| Tetracycline a | >64 | >64 | > 64 | N/A | ≥2 | |
N/A, not applicable; CLSI; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.
NOTE: MICs at or above the intermediate or resistant MIC ranges are shown in boldface.
Resistant range for these agents was defined by MICs above the epidemiological cut-off values (ECOFFs) established by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) [19]. EUCAST uses the terms ‘wild-type’ and ‘non-wild-type’ instead of susceptible and resistant; ECOFFs should not be used to predict clinical efficacy.
Intermediate and resistant ranges for these agents were defined based on CLSI breakpoints for Enterobacterales [21] and should not be used to predict clinical efficacy.
It is not possible to distinguish whether the isolate MICs fall into the intermediate or resistant range based on the dilutions tested.
Intermediate and resistant ranges differ based on the route of transmission; these values are for oral administration.
Intermediate and resistant ranges for these agents were defined based on CLSI breakpoints for anaerobes [21] from the CLSI M100Ed30 and should not be used to predict clinical efficacy.