Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Commentary

One Size Fits All? Application of Susceptible-Dose-Dependent Breakpoints to Pediatric Patients and Laboratory Reporting

Lindsey E. Nielsen, Jeanne B. Forrester, Jennifer Ellis Girotto, Aimee M. Dassner, Romney Humphries
Colleen Suzanne Kraft, Editor
Lindsey E. Nielsen
aUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeanne B. Forrester
bAtrium Health Levine Children’s, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer Ellis Girotto
cSchools of Pharmacy and Medicine, University of Connecticut, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
dConnecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aimee M. Dassner
eChildren’s Health, Dallas, Texas, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Romney Humphries
fAccelerate, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Colleen Suzanne Kraft
Emory University
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01446-19
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute antimicrobial and antifungal standards define a susceptible-dose-dependent (SDD) category for certain organisms and drug combinations. Reporting MICs within the SDD category suggests that treatment success is likely with increased drug exposure. These breakpoints are based on pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical outcome data from adults and not pediatric patients. This commentary aims to discuss the implications of reporting SDD interpretations for pediatric patients and recommends laboratory reporting comments.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or of ASM.

TEXT

The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) publishes two documents that are widely used by clinical laboratories to inform susceptibility testing practices. M100 (Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing) (1) provides recommendations for bacteria and is updated annually, whereas M60 (Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts) (2) addresses yeast testing and is updated periodically. Both documents provide standards for test methodology and quality control (QC) as well as MIC and disc diffusion (DD) clinical breakpoints. Updates to the standards occur when new data on microbial resistance mechanisms, pharmacokinetics (PK) (further defined in the supplemental material) and pharmacodynamics (PD), or clinical outcomes suggest that the historical standard no longer predicts therapy outcomes. At an institutional level, collaboration between the microbiology laboratory, pharmacists, and medical providers should define which aspects of these updated standards are adopted and what antimicrobial reporting, patient treatment, and antimicrobial stewardship practices are best suited to the patients served.

Defining antimicrobial therapy is relatively straightforward when in vitro MIC or DD results fall within the resistance or susceptibility categories. However, deciding the best course of action can be challenging when the MIC or DD result falls in the intermediate interpretive category. Many providers view an intermediate result akin to resistance and switch to another drug class that may be more potent but also carries the potential risk of greater adverse drug events. In addition, changing to another drug class is not always the best antimicrobial stewardship practice and may further drive antimicrobial resistance from drug exposure (3, 4). In response to these concerns, CLSI replaced the intermediate category with “susceptible-dose dependent” (SDD) for select drug/microbe combinations. An SDD interpretation is meant to indicate that increased drug exposure above what is possible with typically used doses, through either increased doses, more frequent doses, and/or infusion times, can predict susceptibility.

The SDD categories established to date (Table 1) were developed using PK/PD, toxicodynamic, and clinical outcome data from adult patients with normal renal function (5–9). It is known that antimicrobial PK in pediatric patients differ substantially from what is seen in adult patients. Children have an evolving physiology which results in changing gastric absorption, liver metabolism, renal elimination, and distribution of antimicrobials as they age. These parameters are often substantially different in children than in adults. For the antimicrobials with SDD interpretive categories, enhanced renal clearance in childhood predicts lower overall antimicrobial exposure, even at elevated doses, than in adults. Thus, application of the dosing strategies outlined in CLSI M100 and M60 to target SDD isolates in pediatric patients may not be optimal. Unfortunately, there are limited data to support or refute the use of these SDD breakpoints for children, limiting the applicability of these interpretative criteria. In this commentary, we provide an overview of the antimicrobials with SDD interpretive criteria and explore existing data to evaluate whether the adult SDD category can be extrapolated to the pediatric population.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 1

Susceptible dose-dependent breakpoints published in CLSI M100S (29th edition) and M60 (1st edition)

CEFEPIME

Cefepime is a fourth-generation bactericidal cephalosporin that interferes with peptidoglycan synthesis. In Enterobacteriaceae producing AmpC-type beta-lactamases, cefepime remains active as it is a poor inducer of AmpC expression (10). Furthermore, the zwitterionic properties of cefepime allow faster penetration through the bacterial cell wall than what is possible with other cephalosporins. Cefepime is largely recognized as a carbapenem-sparing option for the treatment of AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, often making this a good choice for empirical sepsis therapy (11–13). Cefepime’s bactericidal activity against these Gram-negative bacteria is best predicted by a target serum concentration of unbound cefepime that is greater than the MIC (fT>MIC) (see Table S1 in the supplemental material) for at least 50 to 60% of the dosing interval for respiratory infections and 83 to 95% for infections at other anatomical sites (14, 15). For adults, this target can be achieved with a dose of 1 g every 8 h (q8h) or 2 g q12h for an MIC of 4 μg/ml and of 2 g q8h for an MIC of 8 μg/ml (Table 1). However, outside the neonatal age range, it is very unlikely that a pediatric patient will achieve acceptable cefepime exposures at an MIC of 8 μg/ml, even if high-end pediatric dosing (50 mg/kg q8h) is used with typical infusion rates (e.g., 5 to 30 min). For instance, one study found that the probability of target attainment (PTA) (see Table S1 in the supplemental material) was >90% for term and preterm neonates if the isolate MIC was 4 or 8 μg/ml but that the PTA was only 32% with q12 dosing, 69% with q8 dosing, and 89% with q6 dosing for an MIC of 8 μg/ml for children >30 days of age (16). Courter et al. simulated total cefepime doses of 100 to 150 mg/kg/day with a variety of infusion strategies (30 min, 3 h, or continuous infusion) for children aged 2 to 12 years and found PTAs of >90% for all strategies at an MIC of 4 μg/ml, but only the continuous-infusion strategy achieved an acceptable PTA at an MIC of 8 μg/ml (17).

The differences in the PTAs for neonates versus older children for cefepime relates to altered clearance of the drug in these age groups. One study showed that for neonates <4 months of age (average age, 14 days), cefepime clearance was lower than that for older infants and children, leading to a prolonged serum half-life and 95% PTA for isolates with an MIC of 8 μg/ml when dosed at 30 mg/kg q12h (18). It should be noted that the target fT>MIC was >50% in this study; with a target fT>MIC of 95%, this dose has an ∼85% PTA. Cefepime renal clearance increases as children age, but an fT>MIC of ∼90% was shown to be possible in children aged 2 months to 16 years, in a study of intravenous (i.v.) or intramuscular (i.m.) cefepime PK, for isolates with MICs of ≤4 μg/ml (19).

Clinical outcome studies that evaluate treatment efficacy at SDD MICs are limited to adults, but some recent literature suggests worse treatment outcomes when MICs are in the SDD range for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing isolates (20, 21). Lee et al. (20) concluded from a study in adults that treatment of Enterobacter cloacae ESBL-producing isolates using SDD dosing is associated with a higher 30-day mortality rate than with the use of carbapenems. Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli ESBL-producing isolates causing bloodstream infections trended toward a higher mortality if cefepime versus a carbapenem was administered, although this was not statistically significant (22). To date, no data suggest a difference in mortality rate in AmpC, non-ESBL producers with cefepime MICs within the SDD breakpoint, and no outcome studies are available on use of a carbapenem versus cefepime dosed at the SDD concentration.

While the PK data support the use of cefepime in all age groups, different PTAs obtained in various studies, along with the paucity of outcome data, suggest that caution be used when applying the SDD breakpoints in pediatrics. In addition, altered dosing recommendations for neonates with naturally reduced renal clearance should be considered in relation to the SDD breakpoints.

CEFTAROLINE

Ceftaroline is a fifth-generation cephalosporin which, unlike other beta-lactams, possesses activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), as it has affinity for penicillin-binding protein 2a. Like for cefepime, the PK/PD parameter that best predicts efficacy is fT>MIC. In vitro S. aureus models demonstrated that an fT>MIC of ∼35% is required for bactericidal (2-log kill) activity, and this target was used by CLSI to establish the current breakpoints (CLSI June 2018 meeting minutes, rationale document in preparation). CLSI defined MICs of 2 to 4 μg/ml as SDD for S. aureus, with a recommended dosing regimen in adult patients with normal renal function of 600 mg i.v. q8h, administered over 2 h. Although not FDA approved, use of this regimen in adult patients with invasive MRSA infections has been documented throughout the literature (8) and is under investigation by the drug sponsor. It should be noted that some suggest that a target fT>MIC of >50% should be used to avoid emergence of resistance (9, 23).

For ceftaroline, SDD breakpoints are not based on FDA-approved dosing regimens, and neither pediatric nor adult FDA-approved drug dosing regimens are likely to achieve the PK/PD target for isolates in the SDD range, especially the more aggressive target of >50% fT>MIC, which may lead to treatment failure and increased S. aureus drug resistance. Very few data exist to evaluate the safety of off-label ceftaroline doses in pediatrics. One small study evaluated ceftaroline at 15 mg/kg (maximum dose, 600 mg) q8h, infused over a 2-h period, for children >6 months with complicated pneumonia (24). In this study, both efficacy and adverse events were similar to those with the comparator agents, ceftriaxone plus vancomycin. PK modeling of pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) (ages 6 to 17 years) predicts an fT>MIC of 50% for isolates with MICs of 2 μg/ml for ≥90% of patients if the drug is dosed at 15 mg/kg q8h, infused over a 2-h period. Patients with cystic fibrosis have increased drug clearance and volume distribution, so it is predicted that non-CF patients will have an even higher PTA, although this has not been specifically studied (25). Target attainment would be less probable at the higher SDD MIC of 4 μg/ml. Therefore, if trying to achieve an MIC of 4 μg/ml, clinicians should consider utilizing alternative antibiotics, and if ceftaroline is used, therapeutic drug monitoring, which is currently available only from specialty laboratories (e.g., Atlantic Diagnostics Laboratories, Bensalem, PA), may be helpful, although routine turnaround times may diminish clinical utility in patients decompensating from severe infections (26).

DAPTOMYCIN

Daptomycin is a novel cyclic lipopeptide with rapid Gram-positive bactericidal activity via a calcium-dependent mechanism. Daptomycin retains activity against several resistant Gram-positive pathogens, including MRSA and some vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and S. aureus strains (27–30). The concentration-dependent bactericidal activity of daptomycin is best described by the pharmacodynamic parameter comparing the area under the dose concentration curve of freely available drug in serum over time to the target MIC (fAUC/MIC) (31). For Enterococcus spp., CLSI estimated the target fAUC/MIC to be >27.4 by performing a post hoc evaluation of published human outcomes data and to be >9.8 from murine neutropenic thigh infection models (32, 33). Monte Carlo simulations (see Table S1 in the supplemental material) demonstrated 2 to 5% PTA at an MIC of 4 μg/ml for the human-derived target and 65 to 84% PTA for the murine-derived target with the current U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dose of 6 mg/kg/day in adults (34, 35). In contrast, the PTAs at 4 μg/ml were 32 to 54% and 98 to 99% at a dose of 12 mg/kg/day, respectively, using these models. The previous daptomycin susceptibility breakpoint listed in CLSI M100 for all Enterococcus spp. was ≤4 μg/ml. However, these updated PK/PD data and reports of daptomycin treatment failures against E. faecium strains with higher MICs of 4 μg/ml prompted CLSI to revise the susceptible MIC breakpoint for non-E. faecium Enterococcus spp. (from ≤4 μg/ml to ≤2 μg/ml) and to incorporate an SDD category for E. faecium (5, 33). All E. faecium isolates with an MIC of ≤4 μg/ml are now designated SDD based on an adult daptomycin dosing regimen of 8 to 12 mg/kg every 24 h for the treatment of serious E. faecium infection, along with a recommendation for infectious diseases consultation (5, 30, 36–38).

Available pediatric daptomycin pharmacokinetic data highlight an inverse relationship between patient age and daptomycin clearance. Enhanced daptomycin clearance in younger patients results in lower overall drug exposure (i.e., fAUC) (Table S1) than in older children and adults receiving a similar daptomycin dose (29, 39–42). Given the similarities between adolescent and adult daptomycin PK, extrapolation from adult clinical data suggests that adequate PD target attainment may be feasible for patients >12 years of age, although safety data for doses greater than 10 mg/kg are limited (43, 44). Daptomycin monotherapy for the treatment of serious E. faecium infection in children less than 12 years of age is challenging. The available PK literature evaluating total drug AUC exposures for various age groups (<120 days, 3 to 12 months, 13 to 24 months, and 7 to 11 years) at various dosing regimens (6 mg/kg, 4 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, and 7 mg/kg, respectively) do not correlate with an ƒAUC/MIC of >27.4 at an MIC of 4 μg/ml (40, 43–46). Until better dosing data are available, daptomycin monotherapy for the treatment of serious E. faecium infection in children <12 years of age should be used with caution. Therapeutic drug monitoring and drug exposure calculations should be considered when feasible, particularly in critically ill patients with altered drug clearance and volume of distribution (45).

FLUCONAZOLE

Fluconazole is intended for the treatment of certain fungal infections, including those caused by Candida species, and its mechanism of action is to inhibit cytochrome P450 and prevent ergosterol production used in the cytoplasmic membrane (47). The CLSI M60 SDD range is defined by an MIC of 4 μg/ml for C. albicans, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis and of ≤32 μg/ml for C. glabrata, with the caveat that treatment of C. glabrata infections with fluconazole is appropriate only in select clinical contexts (2). For Candida infections, the PK/PD parameter that best predicts a 50% effective fungistatic dose response is reported to be an fAUC/MIC of 25 to 100 (48, 49).

Adult dosing for SDD infections is recommended at >800 mg/dose, higher than the standard dose of 6 to 12 mg/kg/day used clinically, to achieve at least an total drug exposure in the first 24 h, represented by the AUC0–24, of 400 mg · h/liter, equivalent to an AUC/MIC of 50, for treatment of Candida spp. with an MIC of ≤8 μg/ml (50, 51). For invasive candidiasis in immunocompromised adults, an AUC0–24 of 800 mg · h/liter is recommended. A small clinical study of critically ill infants ranging from 6 to 59 days old found that 5 of the 8 achieved an AUC0–24 of ≥400 mg · h/liter following a one-time 25-mg/kg fluconazole loading dose. Fluconazole clearance was highly variable in this small cohort of patients. None of the infants achieved an AUC0–24 of 800 mg · h/liter. A Monte Carlo simulation (see Table S1 in the supplemental material) using serum fluconazole concentrations measured from 55 infants age 1 to 90 days old (gestational age of 23 to 40 weeks) suggested that a daily fluconazole dose of 12 mg/kg will achieve a minimum AUC0–24 of 400 mg · h/liter in at least 90% of infants in this age range, with a median AUC0–24 exposure of 600 to 800 mg · h/liter (52). In older children, doses of 8 mg/kg/day have been shown to correlate with a mean AUC0–24 of only 200 mg · h/liter (53), although higher fluconazole doses of 12 mg/kg/day are commonly used in clinical practice. However, even with this higher dose, children (>90 days old) may not achieve the same fluconazole exposure as recommended in adult patients given their rapid renal clearance (54). Given that the CLSI SDD standard is based on the adult doses higher than the standard of 6 mg/kg/day, this suggests that pediatric patients would be unlikely to obtain the required fluconazole concentration necessary for SDD dosing, necessitating utilization of alternative antifungal agents for severe infections.

SUGGESTED LABORATORY COMMENTS

The clinical microbiology laboratory is responsible for testing and reporting antimicrobial susceptibilities for various microorganisms for clinical application. Certain organism-antimicrobial combinations require additional comments as a recommendation for their use or antimicrobial dosage. These comments are especially important for facilities that may not have immediate access to specialty care providers, such as pediatric infectious disease physicians and pharmacists. As such, microbiology laboratories should be prudent to ensure that reported MIC, interpretation by breakpoints, and comments are accurate and clear. Collaboration with the infectious disease department and pharmacy is highly encouraged whenever reporting changes based on updated CLSI guidelines are considered.

For SDD reporting, appendix F of CLSI M100 (29th edition) provides a suggestion for those laboratories wanting to report a comment with the SDD breakpoint. This comment, however, suggests a “one-size-fits-all” dosage regimen without denoting how differences in PK parameters may influence outcomes. We suggest the following comment for consideration for SDD results in addition to the CLSI comment:

“Interpretive criteria for SDD are based on a dosing regimen that optimizes PK/PD targets in adult patients and may not be applicable to pediatric populations. Consultation with a pediatric pharmacist or physician who is familiar with PD targets and pediatric PK is highly recommended.”

APPLICATION TO PRACTICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SDD is an important concept for antimicrobial stewardship and treatment management in the era of ever-increasing antimicrobial resistance. However, the data that support use of this interpretive category are largely limited to those derived from adult populations. It is important for clinicians to consider that SDD results are based on adult dosing, the pediatric equivalents of which may or may not be sufficient for all pediatric patients. When concerns regarding sufficient dosing exist, one strategy is to obtain patient-level antimicrobial serum concentrations and to calculate patient-specific pharmacodynamic exposures. This strategy is commonly used for the aminoglycosides and vancomycin, but therapeutic drug monitoring is not routinely performed by many institutions for cefepime, daptomycin, fluconazole, or ceftaroline. Laboratories that serve a large pediatric population should discuss the need for drug monitoring with pediatric clinicians and, if desired, determine whether such testing is possible at reference laboratories, although we were able to identify only one reference laboratory that offers therapeutic drug monitoring for ceftaroline and fluconazole, and none that does so for cefepime or daptomycin, in the United States. If ceftaroline is to be used, up-front work by the laboratory to establish an account and specimen shipment routes will avoid delays in patient management for infections caused by organisms with MICs in the SDD range for this drug.

The data used to inform breakpoint revisions by standards development organizations (SDOs) such as CLSI are often sparse, and pediatric data are often unavailable. We urge that, whenever possible, pediatric-specific doses be considered by SDOs when applying SDD to breakpoints. If these data are not available, there should be a clear indication that dosages used to establish the interpretive criterion are for adult populations alone, as was done by CLSI for daptomycin. If data exist to demonstrate that target attainment for an SDD MIC is not achievable in the pediatric population based on their PK, a statement noting this should be provided. In these instances, laboratories might consider editing SDD results to resistant for pediatric patients to avoid confusion. In all cases, management of pediatric infections caused by isolates with MICs in the SDD range is complicated, requiring evaluation of all data by infectious disease pharmacotherapy experts, such as a pediatric infectious disease pharmacist. Microbiology laboratories may consider adding comments to patient reports that suggest consultation with such specialists. Such comments help translate the CLSI goal of integration of the SDD category and ensure patient safety while optimizing antimicrobial stewardship and positive treatment outcomes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Mark Adams and Janet Hindler for their preliminary discussion and suggestion of this commentary topic.

R.H. is a CLSI AST subcommittee member and employed at Accelerate Diagnostics.

FOOTNOTES

    • Accepted manuscript posted online 30 October 2019.
  • Supplemental material is available online only.

  • Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    CLSI. 2019. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 29th ed. CLSI supplement M100. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  2. 2.↵
    CLSI. 2017. Performance standards for antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts, 1st ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Baditoiu L,
    2. Axente C,
    3. Lungeanu D,
    4. Muntean D,
    5. Horhat F,
    6. Moldovan R,
    7. Hogea E,
    8. Bedreag O,
    9. Sandesc D,
    10. Licker M
    . 2017. Intensive care antibiotic consumption and resistance patterns: a cross-correlation analysis. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 16:71. doi:10.1186/s12941-017-0251-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. McLaughlin M,
    2. Advincula MR,
    3. Malczynski M,
    4. Qi C,
    5. Bolon M,
    6. Scheetz MH
    . 2013. Correlations of antibiotic use and carbapenem resistance in Enterobacteriaceae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:5131–5133. doi:10.1128/AAC.00607-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Avery LM,
    2. Kuti JL,
    3. Weisser M,
    4. Egli A,
    5. Rybak MJ,
    6. Zasowski EJ,
    7. Arias CA,
    8. Contreras GA,
    9. Chong PP,
    10. Aitken SL
    . 2018. Pharmacodynamic analysis of daptomycin-treated enterococcal bacteremia: it is time to change the breakpoint. Clin Infect Dis 68:1650–1657. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy749.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Altshuler J,
    2. Guervil DJ,
    3. Ericsson CD,
    4. Wanger A,
    5. Aitken SL,
    6. Ostrosky-Zeichner L
    . 2018. Clinical outcomes in patients with Gram-negative infections treated with optimized dosing cefepime over various minimum inhibitory concentrations. J Pharm Pract 31:34–39. doi:10.1177/0897190017696950.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Sader HS,
    2. Rhomberg PR,
    3. Doyle TB,
    4. Flamm RK,
    5. Mendes RE
    . 2018. Evaluation of the revised ceftaroline disk diffusion breakpoints when testing a challenge collection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates. J Clin Microbiol 56:e00777-18. doi:10.1128/JCM.00777-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Cosimi RA,
    2. Beik N,
    3. Kubiak DW,
    4. Johnson JA
    . 2017. Ceftaroline for severe methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a systematic review. Open Forum Infect Dis 4:ofx084. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx084.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Das S,
    2. Li J,
    3. Iaconis J,
    4. Zhou D,
    5. Stone GG,
    6. Yan JL,
    7. Melnick D
    . 2019. Ceftaroline fosamil doses and breakpoints for Staphylococcus aureus in complicated skin and soft tissue infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 74:425–431. doi:10.1093/jac/dky439.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Jacoby GA
    . 2009. AmpC β-lactamases. Clin Microbiol Rev 22:161–182. doi:10.1128/CMR.00036-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Lee N-Y,
    2. Lee C-C,
    3. Huang W-H,
    4. Tsui K-C,
    5. Hsueh P-R,
    6. Ko W-C
    . 2013. Cefepime therapy for monomicrobial bacteremia caused by cefepime-susceptible extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae: MIC matters. Clin Infect Dis 56:488–495. doi:10.1093/cid/cis916.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Bauer KA,
    2. West JE,
    3. O'Brien JM,
    4. Goff DA
    . 2013. Extended-infusion cefepime reduces mortality in patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:2907–2912. doi:10.1128/AAC.02365-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Siedner MJ,
    2. Galar A,
    3. Guzmán-Suarez BB,
    4. Kubiak DW,
    5. Baghdady N,
    6. Ferraro MJ,
    7. Hooper DC,
    8. O'Brien TF,
    9. Marty FM
    . 2014. Cefepime vs other antibacterial agents for the treatment of Enterobacter species bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 58:1554–1563. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu182.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Tam VH,
    2. McKinnon PS,
    3. Akins RL,
    4. Rybak MJ,
    5. Drusano GL
    . 2002. Pharmacodynamics of cefepime in patients with Gram-negative infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 50:425–428. doi:10.1093/jac/dkf130.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Andes D,
    2. Anon J,
    3. Jacobs MR,
    4. Craig WA
    . 2004. Application of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to antimicrobial therapy of respiratory tract infections. Clin Lab Med 24:477–502. doi:10.1016/j.cll.2004.03.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Shoji K,
    2. Bradley JS,
    3. Reed MD,
    4. van den Anker JN,
    5. Domonoske C,
    6. Capparelli EV
    . 2016. Population pharmacokinetic assessment and pharmacodynamic implications of pediatric cefepime dosing for susceptible-dose-dependent organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:2150–2156. doi:10.1128/AAC.02592-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Courter JD,
    2. Kuti JL,
    3. Girotto JE,
    4. Nicolau DP
    . 2009. Optimizing bactericidal exposure for β‐lactams using prolonged and continuous infusions in the pediatric population. Pediatr Blood Cancer 53:379–385. doi:10.1002/pbc.22051.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Capparelli E,
    2. Hochwald C,
    3. Rasmussen M,
    4. Parham A,
    5. Bradley J,
    6. Moya F
    . 2005. Population pharmacokinetics of cefepime in the neonate. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:2760–2766. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.7.2760-2766.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Reed MD,
    2. Yamashita TS,
    3. Knupp CK,
    4. Veazey J,
    5. Blumer JL
    . 1997. Pharmacokinetics of intravenously and intramuscularly administered cefepime in infants and children. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 41:1783–1787. doi:10.1128/AAC.41.8.1783.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Lee N-Y,
    2. Lee C-C,
    3. Li C-W,
    4. Li M-C,
    5. Chen P-L,
    6. Chang C-M,
    7. Ko W-C
    . 2015. Cefepime therapy for monomicrobial Enterobacter cloacae bacteremia: unfavorable outcomes in patients infected by cefepime-susceptible dose-dependent isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59:7558–7563. doi:10.1128/AAC.01477-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Deal EN,
    2. Micek ST,
    3. Reichley RM,
    4. Ritchie DJ
    . 2009. Effects of an alternative cefepime dosing strategy in pulmonary and bloodstream infections caused by Enterobacter spp, Citrobacter freundii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a single-center, open-label, prospective, observational study. Clin Ther 31:299–310. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.02.015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Chopra T,
    2. Marchaim D,
    3. Veltman J,
    4. Johnson P,
    5. Zhao JJ,
    6. Tansek R,
    7. Hatahet D,
    8. Chaudhry K,
    9. Pogue JM,
    10. Rahbar H,
    11. Chen T-Y,
    12. Truong T,
    13. Rodriguez V,
    14. Ellsworth J,
    15. Bernabela L,
    16. Bhargava A,
    17. Yousuf A,
    18. Alangaden G,
    19. Kaye KS
    . 2012. Impact of cefepime therapy on mortality among patients with bloodstream infections caused by extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:3936–3942. doi:10.1128/AAC.05419-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. MacGowan AP,
    2. Noel AR,
    3. Tomaselli S,
    4. Bowker KE
    . 2013. Pharmacodynamics of ceftaroline against Staphylococcus aureus studied in an in vitro pharmacokinetic model of infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:2451–2456. doi:10.1128/AAC.01386-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Blumer JL,
    2. Ghonghadze T,
    3. Cannavino C,
    4. O'Neal T,
    5. Jandourek A,
    6. Friedland HD,
    7. Bradley JS
    . 2016. A multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded, active-controlled study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of ceftaroline compared with ceftriaxone plus vancomycin in pediatric patients with complicated community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. Pediatr Infect Dis J 35:760–766. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000001160.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    1. Le J,
    2. Bradley JS,
    3. Hingtgen S,
    4. Skochko S,
    5. Black N,
    6. Jones RN,
    7. Lim M,
    8. Capparelli EV
    . 2017. Pharmacokinetics of single-dose ceftaroline fosamil in children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol 52:1424–1434. doi:10.1002/ppul.23827.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    1. Cies JJ,
    2. Moore WS,
    3. Enache A,
    4. Chopra A
    . 2018. Ceftaroline for suspected or confirmed invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a pharmacokinetic case series. Pediatr Crit Care Med 19:e292–e299. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000001497.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Cha R,
    2. Grucz RG,
    3. Rybak MJ
    . 2003. Daptomycin dose-effect relationship against resistant Gram-positive organisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47:1598–1603. doi:10.1128/aac.47.5.1598-1603.2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Dandekar PK,
    2. Tessier PR,
    3. Williams P,
    4. Nightingale CH,
    5. Nicolau DP
    . 2003. Pharmacodynamic profile of daptomycin against Enterococcus species and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a murine thigh infection model. J Antimicrob Chemother 52:405–411. doi:10.1093/jac/dkg337.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    1. Bradley J,
    2. Glasser C,
    3. Patino H,
    4. Arnold SR,
    5. Arrieta A,
    6. Congeni B,
    7. Daum RS,
    8. Kojaoghlanian T,
    9. Yoon M,
    10. Anastasiou D,
    11. Wolf DJ,
    12. Bokesch P
    . 2017. Daptomycin for complicated skin infections: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 139:e20162477. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2477.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Chuang Y-C,
    2. Lin H-Y,
    3. Chen P-Y,
    4. Lin C-Y,
    5. Wang J-T,
    6. Chen Y-C,
    7. Chang S-C
    . 2017. Effect of daptomycin dose on the outcome of vancomycin-resistant, daptomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecium bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 64:1026–1034. doi:10.1093/cid/cix024.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    1. Safdar N,
    2. Andes D,
    3. Craig W
    . 2004. In vivo pharmacodynamic activity of daptomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48:63–68. doi:10.1128/aac.48.1.63-68.2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Alder J,
    2. Li T,
    3. Yu D,
    4. Morton L,
    5. Silverman J,
    6. Zhang X-X,
    7. Critchley I,
    8. Thorne G
    . 2003. Analysis of daptomycin efficacy and breakpoint standards in a murine model of Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium renal infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47:3561–3566. doi:10.1128/aac.47.11.3561-3566.2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Humphries RM
    . 2019. The new, new daptomycin breakpoint for Enterococcus spp. J Clin Microbiol 57:e00600-19. doi:10.1128/JCM.00600-19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Avery LM,
    2. Kuti JL,
    3. Weisser M,
    4. Egli A,
    5. Rybak MJ,
    6. Zasowski EJ,
    7. Arias CA,
    8. Contreras GA,
    9. Chong PP,
    10. Aitken SL,
    11. DiPippo AJ,
    12. Wang J-T,
    13. Britt NS,
    14. Nicolau DP
    . 2019. Pharmacodynamics of daptomycin when prescribed in combination with other antibiotics for treatment of enterococcal bacteremia. Int J Antimicrobial Agents 54:346–350. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.07.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    1. Kidd JM,
    2. Abdelraouf K,
    3. Asempa TE,
    4. Humphries RM,
    5. Nicolau DP
    . 2018. Pharmacodynamics of daptomycin against Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis in the murine thigh infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:e00506-18. doi:10.1128/AAC.00506-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Shukla BS,
    2. Shelburne S,
    3. Reyes K,
    4. Kamboj M,
    5. Lewis JD,
    6. Rincon SL,
    7. Reyes J,
    8. Carvajal LP,
    9. Panesso D,
    10. Sifri CD,
    11. Zervos MJ,
    12. Pamer EG,
    13. Tran TT,
    14. Adachi J,
    15. Munita JM,
    16. Hasbun R,
    17. Arias CA
    . 2016. Influence of minimum inhibitory concentration in clinical outcomes of Enterococcus faecium bacteremia treated with daptomycin: is it time to change the breakpoint? Clin Infect Dis 62:1514–1520. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw173.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Munita JM,
    2. Mishra NN,
    3. Alvarez D,
    4. Tran TT,
    5. Diaz L,
    6. Panesso D,
    7. Reyes J,
    8. Murray BE,
    9. Adachi JA,
    10. Bayer AS,
    11. Arias CA
    . 2014. Failure of high-dose daptomycin for bacteremia caused by daptomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecium harboring LiaSR substitutions. Clin Infect Dis 59:1277–1280. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu642.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Britt NS,
    2. Potter EM,
    3. Patel N,
    4. Steed ME
    . 2016. Comparative effectiveness and safety of standard-, medium-, and high-dose daptomycin strategies for the treatment of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia among Veterans Affairs patients. Clin Infect Dis 64:605–613. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw815.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    1. Abdel-Rahman SM,
    2. Benziger DP,
    3. Jacobs RF,
    4. Jafri HS,
    5. Hong EF,
    6. Kearns GL
    . 2008. Single-dose pharmacokinetics of daptomycin in children with suspected or proved gram-positive infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J 27:330–334. doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e318160edfc.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    1. Abdel-Rahman SM,
    2. Chandorkar G,
    3. Akins RL,
    4. Bradley JS,
    5. Jacobs RF,
    6. Donovan J,
    7. Benziger DP
    . 2011. Single-dose pharmacokinetics and tolerability of daptomycin 8 to 10 mg/kg in children aged 2 to 6 years with suspected or proved Gram-positive infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J 30:712–714. doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e31820fc8e1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Bradley JS,
    2. Benziger D,
    3. Bokesch P,
    4. Jacobs R
    . 2014. Single-dose pharmacokinetics of daptomycin in pediatric patients 3–24 months of age. Pediatr Infect Dis J 33:936–939. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000000318.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Cohen-Wolkowiez M,
    2. Watt KM,
    3. Hornik CP,
    4. Benjamin DK, Jr,
    5. Smith PB
    . 2012. Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of single-dose daptomycin in young infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 31:935. doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e31825d2fa2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Syrogiannopoulos GA,
    2. Michoula AN,
    3. Petinaki E,
    4. Grivea IN
    . 2017. Daptomycin use in children: experience with various types of infection and age groups. Pediatr Infect Dis J 36:962–966. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000001629.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    1. Arrieta AC,
    2. Bradley JS,
    3. Popejoy MW,
    4. Bensaci M,
    5. Grandhi A,
    6. Bokesch P,
    7. Glasser C,
    8. Du L,
    9. Patino H,
    10. Kartsonis NA
    . 2018. Randomized multicenter study comparing safety and efficacy of daptomycin versus standard-of-care in pediatric patients with staphylococcal bacteremia. Pediatr Infect Dis J 37:893–900. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000001926.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    1. Antachopoulos C,
    2. Iosifidis E,
    3. Sarafidis K,
    4. Bazoti F,
    5. Gikas E,
    6. Katragkou A,
    7. Drossou-Agakidou V,
    8. Roilides E
    . 2012. Serum levels of daptomycin in pediatric patients. Infection 40:367–371. doi:10.1007/s15010-011-0240-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. 46.↵
    1. Durand C,
    2. Brueckner A,
    3. Sampadian C,
    4. Willett KC,
    5. Belliveau P
    . 2014. Daptomycin use in pediatric patients. Am J Health Syst Pharm 71:1177–1182. doi:10.2146/ajhp130601.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Ghannoum MA,
    2. Rice LB
    . 1999. Antifungal agents: mode of action, mechanisms of resistance, and correlation of these mechanisms with bacterial resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 12:501–517. doi:10.1128/CMR.12.4.501.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Andes D,
    2. Van Ogtrop M
    . 1999. Characterization and quantitation of the pharmacodynamics of fluconazole in a neutropenic murine disseminated candidiasis infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 43:2116–2120. doi:10.1128/AAC.43.9.2116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Pea F,
    2. Lewis RE
    . 2018. Overview of antifungal dosing in invasive candidiasis. J Antimicrob Chemother 73:i33–i43. doi:10.1093/jac/dkx447.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    1. Piper L,
    2. Smith PB,
    3. Hornik CP,
    4. Cheifetz IM,
    5. Barrett JS,
    6. Moorthy G,
    7. Hope WW,
    8. Wade KC,
    9. Cohen-Wolkowiez M,
    10. Benjamin DK
    . 2011. Fluconazole loading dose pharmacokinetics and safety in infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 30:375. doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e318202cbb3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Pappas PG,
    2. Kauffman CA,
    3. Andes DR,
    4. Clancy CJ,
    5. Marr KA,
    6. Ostrosky-Zeichner L,
    7. Reboli AC,
    8. Schuster MG,
    9. Vazquez JA,
    10. Walsh TJ,
    11. Zaoutis TE,
    12. Sobel JD
    . 2016. Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 62:e1–e50. doi:10.1093/cid/civ1194.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Wade KC,
    2. Benjamin DK, Jr,
    3. Kaufman DA,
    4. Ward RM,
    5. Smith PB,
    6. Jayaraman B,
    7. Adamson PC,
    8. Gastonguay MR,
    9. Barrett JS
    . 2009. Fluconazole dosing for the prevention or treatment of invasive candidiasis in young infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 28:717. doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e31819f1f50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 53.↵
    1. Lee JW,
    2. Seibel NL,
    3. Amantea M,
    4. Whitcomb P,
    5. Pizzo PA,
    6. Walsh TJ
    . 1992. Safety and pharmacokinetics of fluconazole in children with neoplastic diseases. J Pediatr 120:987–993. doi:10.1016/s0022-3476(05)81975-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. 54.↵
    1. Brammer K,
    2. Coates P
    . 1994. Pharmacokinetics of fluconazole in pediatric patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 13:325–329. doi:10.1007/bf01974613.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
One Size Fits All? Application of Susceptible-Dose-Dependent Breakpoints to Pediatric Patients and Laboratory Reporting
Lindsey E. Nielsen, Jeanne B. Forrester, Jennifer Ellis Girotto, Aimee M. Dassner, Romney Humphries
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 2019, 58 (1) e01446-19; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01446-19

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
One Size Fits All? Application of Susceptible-Dose-Dependent Breakpoints to Pediatric Patients and Laboratory Reporting
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
One Size Fits All? Application of Susceptible-Dose-Dependent Breakpoints to Pediatric Patients and Laboratory Reporting
Lindsey E. Nielsen, Jeanne B. Forrester, Jennifer Ellis Girotto, Aimee M. Dassner, Romney Humphries
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 2019, 58 (1) e01446-19; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01446-19
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • CEFEPIME
    • CEFTAROLINE
    • DAPTOMYCIN
    • FLUCONAZOLE
    • SUGGESTED LABORATORY COMMENTS
    • APPLICATION TO PRACTICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

CLSI
M100
M40
MIC
antimicrobial agents
breakpoints
pediatric drug therapy
susceptible-dose dependent

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X