Comparative activities of ampicillin and teicoplanin against Enterococcus faecalis isolates.
Ampicillin
Antibiotic resistance
Enterococcus faecalis
Teicoplanin
Journal
BMC microbiology
ISSN: 1471-2180
Titre abrégé: BMC Microbiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100966981
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 01 2023
06 01 2023
Historique:
received:
15
10
2022
accepted:
29
12
2022
entrez:
7
1
2023
pubmed:
8
1
2023
medline:
11
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Enterococcus faecalis remains one of the most common pathogens causing infection in surgical patients. Our goal was to evaluate the antibiotic resistance of E. faecalis, causing infections in a surgical clinic, against two antibacterial drugs, ampicillin and teicoplanin. One commonly administered in the past for such infections, ampicillin, and another newer, teicoplanin, which demonstrated exceptionally good efficacy. Data from 1882 isolates were retrieved from the microbiology department database during two 5-year periods. Standard biochemical methods were employed for the identification of the isolates. The prevalence of E. faecalis among patients with clinical evidence of infection in a surgical oncology ward was assessed. Confidence interval (CI) as well as standard error (SE) were calculated. Moreover, the annual incidence of E. faecalis infections in this surgical ward was recorded. The susceptibility of E. faecalis to ampicillin and teicoplanin was studied and compared using Fisher's exact test. Results showed that the incidence of E. faecalis infections in the surgical clinic was increasing. Ampicillin, in the later year period, was not statistically different from teicoplanin in treating E. faecalis infections. Consequently, ampicillin seems currently to be an effective antibiotic against such infections that could be used as empiric therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Enterococcus faecalis remains one of the most common pathogens causing infection in surgical patients. Our goal was to evaluate the antibiotic resistance of E. faecalis, causing infections in a surgical clinic, against two antibacterial drugs, ampicillin and teicoplanin. One commonly administered in the past for such infections, ampicillin, and another newer, teicoplanin, which demonstrated exceptionally good efficacy.
METHODS
Data from 1882 isolates were retrieved from the microbiology department database during two 5-year periods. Standard biochemical methods were employed for the identification of the isolates. The prevalence of E. faecalis among patients with clinical evidence of infection in a surgical oncology ward was assessed. Confidence interval (CI) as well as standard error (SE) were calculated. Moreover, the annual incidence of E. faecalis infections in this surgical ward was recorded. The susceptibility of E. faecalis to ampicillin and teicoplanin was studied and compared using Fisher's exact test.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
Results showed that the incidence of E. faecalis infections in the surgical clinic was increasing. Ampicillin, in the later year period, was not statistically different from teicoplanin in treating E. faecalis infections. Consequently, ampicillin seems currently to be an effective antibiotic against such infections that could be used as empiric therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36609223
doi: 10.1186/s12866-022-02753-1
pii: 10.1186/s12866-022-02753-1
pmc: PMC9817409
doi:
Substances chimiques
Teicoplanin
61036-62-2
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Ampicillin
7C782967RD
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Mar 15;42(6):739-46
pubmed: 16477546
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2008;631:200-13
pubmed: 18792691
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016 Nov;37(11):1288-1301
pubmed: 27573805
Methods Mol Biol. 2022;2420:207-216
pubmed: 34905176
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 May 19;20(1):356
pubmed: 32517758
Clin Pharm. 1988 Sep;7(9):647-58
pubmed: 2977108
J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 May;8(5):ME01-3
pubmed: 24995206
Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Fall;2(4):212-21
pubmed: 20111657
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2015 Feb;16(1):14-23
pubmed: 25761076
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;30(8):786-9
pubmed: 19591581
Appl Microbiol. 1961 Nov;9(6):541-4
pubmed: 16349612
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998 Aug;19(8):546-51
pubmed: 9758053
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;30(2):184-6
pubmed: 19125679
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012 Mar 16;10(4):266-78
pubmed: 22421879
Euro Surveill. 2008 Nov 20;13(47):
pubmed: 19021959
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Jun;38(6):2108-11
pubmed: 10834961
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;30(10):964-71
pubmed: 19732018
Clin Infect Dis. 1993 Jun;16(6):750-5
pubmed: 8329505
Ann Surg. 1990 Aug;212(2):155-9
pubmed: 2198000
Virulence. 2012 Aug 15;3(5):421-33
pubmed: 23076243
Appl Microbiol. 1972 Oct;24(4):575-80
pubmed: 4628796
Infect Dis (Auckl). 2019 Oct 15;12:1178633719882929
pubmed: 31662606
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2011 Oct;17(5):472-9
pubmed: 21900766
J Infect Chemother. 2021 Dec;27(12):1729-1734
pubmed: 34521590
Microbios. 1976;16(64):91-104
pubmed: 829267
J Infect Dis. 1987 Feb;155(2):187-91
pubmed: 2949024
J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Nov 18;59(12):e0021321
pubmed: 34550809
Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1988 Mar;22(3):218-26
pubmed: 2966729
Appl Microbiol. 1963 Mar;11:136-40
pubmed: 13936610
Br J Surg. 2013 Mar;100(4):465-73
pubmed: 23338685
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jun 8;96(12):6908-13
pubmed: 10359812
Lancet. 2022 Nov 19;400(10365):1767-1776
pubmed: 36328045
J Hosp Infect. 2022 Mar;121:120-127
pubmed: 34861314