Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Anaerobe ; 54: 236-239, 2018 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29501419

RESUMO

This study evaluated the MBT-ASTRA for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Bacteroides fragilis with different classes of antibiotics. MALDI-TOF MS peak AUCs from suspensions with B. fragilis with and without an antibiotic were used to calculate the relative growth (AUC "with antibiotic" divided by "without antibiotic"). Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of B. fragilis ATCC 25285 (susceptible) and B. fragilis O18 (resistant) was demonstrated with a clear difference of the relative growth between susceptible and resistant. The MBT-ASTRA needs further development and assessment but could be a relatively easy and inexpensive method for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing in specific cases of infection with B. fragilis.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Bacteroides fragilis/efeitos dos fármacos , Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana/métodos , Espectrometria de Massas por Ionização e Dessorção a Laser Assistida por Matriz/métodos , Infecções por Bacteroides/microbiologia , Bacteroides fragilis/química , Bacteroides fragilis/crescimento & desenvolvimento , Bacteroides fragilis/isolamento & purificação , Humanos
2.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 72(2): 437-440, 2017 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27798215

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the performance of the meropenem and imipenem double-ended Etest ±â€ŠEDTA and the tablet-based (meropenem and meropenem + dipicolinic acid) KPC/MBL Confirm Kit to detect cfiA metallo-ß-lactamase (MBL) in Bacteroides fragilis. METHODS: Well-characterized B. fragilis isolates, most from previously published studies, harbouring the cfiA gene and covering a wide range of meropenem MICs were included (n = 21). RESULTS: The imipenem double-ended Etest showed an indeterminate result in 95% of the included isolates with the cfiA gene (20 of 21), whereas the meropenem double-ended Etest gave an MIC ratio ≥8 (positive test) with all the isolates. All isolates that were meropenem intermediate or resistant had a zone diameter difference ≥6 mm with the KPC/MBL Confirm Kit. CONCLUSIONS: The meropenem double-ended Etest and not imipenem should be preferred for phenotypic detection of MBLs in B. fragilis. The KPC/MBL Confirm Kit could be an alternative with isolates that are meropenem intermediate or resistant (MIC >2 mg/L).


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/metabolismo , Proteínas de Bactérias/análise , Bacteroides fragilis/enzimologia , Testes de Sensibilidade a Antimicrobianos por Disco-Difusão/métodos , Ácido Edético/metabolismo , Kit de Reagentes para Diagnóstico , Tienamicinas/metabolismo , beta-Lactamases/análise , Meropeném
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA