This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Karlowsky, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sahm, D. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Karlowsky, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sahm, D. F.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2003, p. 3339-3343, Vol. 41, No. 7
0095-1137/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.7.3339-3343.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of Four Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Methods To Determine the In Vitro Activities of Piperacillin and Piperacillin-Tazobactam against Clinical Isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

James A. Karlowsky,1* Mellany K. Weaver,1 Clyde Thornsberry,1 Michael J. Dowzicky,2 Mark E. Jones,1 and Daniel F. Sahm1

Focus Technologies, Herndon, Virginia 20171,1 Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Saint Davids, Pennsylvania 190872

Received 28 February 2003/ Returned for modification 27 March 2003/ Accepted 8 April 2003

Susceptibility to piperacillin was similar to that to piperacillin-tazobactam (<1% difference) for 6,938 isolates of Enterobacter aerogenes and 13,954 isolates of Enterobacter cloacae tested using a Vitek system; for the same species, in contrast, susceptibility rates to piperacillin-tazobactam were 5.9 to 13.9% higher than to piperacillin using disk diffusion, MicroScan, and Vitek 2 testing. Unprecedented phenotypes (piperacillin susceptible and piperacillin-tazobactam intermediate; piperacillin intermediate and piperacillin-tazobactam resistant; piperacillin susceptible and piperacillin-tazobactam resistant) accounted for 6.1% of the results for E. aerogenes isolates and 6.0% of the results for E. cloacae isolates tested with the Vitek system.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Focus Technologies, 13665 Dulles Technology Dr., Suite 200, Herndon, VA 20171-4603. Phone: (703) 480-2575. Fax: (703) 480-2654. E-mail: jkarlowsky{at}focusanswers.com.


Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2003, p. 3339-3343, Vol. 41, No. 7
0095-1137/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.7.3339-3343.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.




This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Torres, E., Villanueva, R., Bou, G. (2009). Comparison of different methods of determining {beta}-lactam susceptibility in clinical strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Med Microbiol 58: 625-629 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Mazzariol, A., Aldegheri, M., Ligozzi, M., Lo Cascio, G., Koncan, R., Fontana, R. (2008). Performance of Vitek 2 in Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates with Different Mechanisms of {beta}-Lactam Resistance. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 2095-2098 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Nayak, R., Call, V., Kaldhone, P., Tyler, C., Anderson, G., Phillips, S., Kerdahi, K., Foley, S. L. (2007). Comparison of Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg Susceptibility Testing Results. Clin Med Res 5: 98-105 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Menozzi, M. G., Eigner, U., Covan, S., Rossi, S., Somenzi, P., Dettori, G., Chezzi, C., Fahr, A.-M. (2006). Two-Center Collaborative Evaluation of Performance of the BD Phoenix Automated Microbiology System for Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Gram-Negative Bacteria. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44: 4085-4094 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Sader, H. S., Fritsche, T. R., Jones, R. N. (2006). Accuracy of Three Automated Systems (MicroScan WalkAway, VITEK, and VITEK 2) for Susceptibility Testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa against Five Broad-Spectrum Beta-Lactam Agents.. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44: 1101-1104 [Abstract] [Full Text]