Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of anaerobic bacterial clinical isolates from 2014 to 2016, including recently named or renamed species

Jung Hyun Byun, Myungsook Kim, Yangsoon Lee, Kyungwon Lee, Yunsop Chong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Anaerobic bacterial resistance trends may vary across regions or institutions. Regional susceptibility patterns are pivotal in the empirical treatment of anaerobic infections. We determined the antimicrobial resistance patterns of clinically important anaerobic bacteria, including recently named or renamed anaerobes. Methods: A total of 521 non-duplicated clinical isolates of anaerobic bacteria were collected from a tertiary-care hospital in Korea between 2014 and 2016. Anaerobes were isolated from blood, body fluids, and abscess specimens. Each isolate was identified by conventional methods and by Bruker biotyper mass spectrometry (Bruker Daltonics, Leipzig, Germany) or VITEK matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Étoile, France). Antimicrobial susceptibility was tested using the agar dilution method according to the CLSI guidelines. The following antimicrobials were tested: piperacillin-tazobactam, cefoxitin, cefotetan, imipenem, meropenem, clindamycin, moxifloxacin, chloramphenicol, tetracycline, and metronidazole. Results: Most Bacteroides fragilis isolates were susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, and meropenem. The non-fragilis Bacteroides group (including B. intestinalis, B. nordii, B. pyogenes, B. stercoris, B. salyersiae, and B. cellulosilyticus) was resistant to meropenem (14%) and cefotetan (71%), and Parabacteroides distasonis was resistant to imipenem (11%) and cefotetan (95%). Overall, the Prevotella and Fusobacterium isolates were more susceptible to antimicrobial agents than the B. fragilis group isolates. Anaerobic gram-positive cocci exhibited various resistance rates to tetracycline (6-86%). Clostridioides difficile was highly resistant to penicillin, cefoxitin, imipenem, clindamycin, and moxifloxacin. Conclusions: Piperacillin-tazobactam, cefoxitin, and carbapenems are highly active β-lactam agents against most anaerobes, including recently named or renamed species.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)190-199
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Laboratory Medicine
Volume39
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Jan 1

Fingerprint

meropenem
Imipenem
Cefotetan
Cefoxitin
Bacteroides fragilis
Anaerobic Bacteria
Clindamycin
Tetracycline
Mass spectrometry
Mass Spectrometry
Bacteria
Fusobacterium
Prevotella
Lactams
Gram-Positive Cocci
Bacteroides
Carbapenems
Body fluids
Metronidazole
Body Fluids

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Biochemistry
  • Biochemistry, medical

Cite this

@article{c72d4285376e46018513472aee9784da,
title = "Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of anaerobic bacterial clinical isolates from 2014 to 2016, including recently named or renamed species",
abstract = "Background: Anaerobic bacterial resistance trends may vary across regions or institutions. Regional susceptibility patterns are pivotal in the empirical treatment of anaerobic infections. We determined the antimicrobial resistance patterns of clinically important anaerobic bacteria, including recently named or renamed anaerobes. Methods: A total of 521 non-duplicated clinical isolates of anaerobic bacteria were collected from a tertiary-care hospital in Korea between 2014 and 2016. Anaerobes were isolated from blood, body fluids, and abscess specimens. Each isolate was identified by conventional methods and by Bruker biotyper mass spectrometry (Bruker Daltonics, Leipzig, Germany) or VITEK matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (bioM{\'e}rieux, Marcy-l'{\'E}toile, France). Antimicrobial susceptibility was tested using the agar dilution method according to the CLSI guidelines. The following antimicrobials were tested: piperacillin-tazobactam, cefoxitin, cefotetan, imipenem, meropenem, clindamycin, moxifloxacin, chloramphenicol, tetracycline, and metronidazole. Results: Most Bacteroides fragilis isolates were susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, and meropenem. The non-fragilis Bacteroides group (including B. intestinalis, B. nordii, B. pyogenes, B. stercoris, B. salyersiae, and B. cellulosilyticus) was resistant to meropenem (14{\%}) and cefotetan (71{\%}), and Parabacteroides distasonis was resistant to imipenem (11{\%}) and cefotetan (95{\%}). Overall, the Prevotella and Fusobacterium isolates were more susceptible to antimicrobial agents than the B. fragilis group isolates. Anaerobic gram-positive cocci exhibited various resistance rates to tetracycline (6-86{\%}). Clostridioides difficile was highly resistant to penicillin, cefoxitin, imipenem, clindamycin, and moxifloxacin. Conclusions: Piperacillin-tazobactam, cefoxitin, and carbapenems are highly active β-lactam agents against most anaerobes, including recently named or renamed species.",
author = "Byun, {Jung Hyun} and Myungsook Kim and Yangsoon Lee and Kyungwon Lee and Yunsop Chong",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3343/alm.2019.39.2.190",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "190--199",
journal = "Annals of Laboratory Medicine",
issn = "2234-3806",
publisher = "Seoul National University",
number = "2",

}

Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of anaerobic bacterial clinical isolates from 2014 to 2016, including recently named or renamed species. / Byun, Jung Hyun; Kim, Myungsook; Lee, Yangsoon; Lee, Kyungwon; Chong, Yunsop.

In: Annals of Laboratory Medicine, Vol. 39, No. 2, 01.01.2019, p. 190-199.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of anaerobic bacterial clinical isolates from 2014 to 2016, including recently named or renamed species

AU - Byun, Jung Hyun

AU - Kim, Myungsook

AU - Lee, Yangsoon

AU - Lee, Kyungwon

AU - Chong, Yunsop

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: Anaerobic bacterial resistance trends may vary across regions or institutions. Regional susceptibility patterns are pivotal in the empirical treatment of anaerobic infections. We determined the antimicrobial resistance patterns of clinically important anaerobic bacteria, including recently named or renamed anaerobes. Methods: A total of 521 non-duplicated clinical isolates of anaerobic bacteria were collected from a tertiary-care hospital in Korea between 2014 and 2016. Anaerobes were isolated from blood, body fluids, and abscess specimens. Each isolate was identified by conventional methods and by Bruker biotyper mass spectrometry (Bruker Daltonics, Leipzig, Germany) or VITEK matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Étoile, France). Antimicrobial susceptibility was tested using the agar dilution method according to the CLSI guidelines. The following antimicrobials were tested: piperacillin-tazobactam, cefoxitin, cefotetan, imipenem, meropenem, clindamycin, moxifloxacin, chloramphenicol, tetracycline, and metronidazole. Results: Most Bacteroides fragilis isolates were susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, and meropenem. The non-fragilis Bacteroides group (including B. intestinalis, B. nordii, B. pyogenes, B. stercoris, B. salyersiae, and B. cellulosilyticus) was resistant to meropenem (14%) and cefotetan (71%), and Parabacteroides distasonis was resistant to imipenem (11%) and cefotetan (95%). Overall, the Prevotella and Fusobacterium isolates were more susceptible to antimicrobial agents than the B. fragilis group isolates. Anaerobic gram-positive cocci exhibited various resistance rates to tetracycline (6-86%). Clostridioides difficile was highly resistant to penicillin, cefoxitin, imipenem, clindamycin, and moxifloxacin. Conclusions: Piperacillin-tazobactam, cefoxitin, and carbapenems are highly active β-lactam agents against most anaerobes, including recently named or renamed species.

AB - Background: Anaerobic bacterial resistance trends may vary across regions or institutions. Regional susceptibility patterns are pivotal in the empirical treatment of anaerobic infections. We determined the antimicrobial resistance patterns of clinically important anaerobic bacteria, including recently named or renamed anaerobes. Methods: A total of 521 non-duplicated clinical isolates of anaerobic bacteria were collected from a tertiary-care hospital in Korea between 2014 and 2016. Anaerobes were isolated from blood, body fluids, and abscess specimens. Each isolate was identified by conventional methods and by Bruker biotyper mass spectrometry (Bruker Daltonics, Leipzig, Germany) or VITEK matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Étoile, France). Antimicrobial susceptibility was tested using the agar dilution method according to the CLSI guidelines. The following antimicrobials were tested: piperacillin-tazobactam, cefoxitin, cefotetan, imipenem, meropenem, clindamycin, moxifloxacin, chloramphenicol, tetracycline, and metronidazole. Results: Most Bacteroides fragilis isolates were susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam, imipenem, and meropenem. The non-fragilis Bacteroides group (including B. intestinalis, B. nordii, B. pyogenes, B. stercoris, B. salyersiae, and B. cellulosilyticus) was resistant to meropenem (14%) and cefotetan (71%), and Parabacteroides distasonis was resistant to imipenem (11%) and cefotetan (95%). Overall, the Prevotella and Fusobacterium isolates were more susceptible to antimicrobial agents than the B. fragilis group isolates. Anaerobic gram-positive cocci exhibited various resistance rates to tetracycline (6-86%). Clostridioides difficile was highly resistant to penicillin, cefoxitin, imipenem, clindamycin, and moxifloxacin. Conclusions: Piperacillin-tazobactam, cefoxitin, and carbapenems are highly active β-lactam agents against most anaerobes, including recently named or renamed species.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056631487&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056631487&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3343/alm.2019.39.2.190

DO - 10.3343/alm.2019.39.2.190

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 190

EP - 199

JO - Annals of Laboratory Medicine

T2 - Annals of Laboratory Medicine

JF - Annals of Laboratory Medicine

SN - 2234-3806

IS - 2

ER -