Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 1999, p. 862-867, Vol. 43, No. 4
Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital
Ramón y Cajal, 28034-Madrid, Spain
Received 18 August 1998/Returned for modification 3 December
1998/Accepted 3 February 1999
The activities of ampicillin-sulbactam and amoxicillin-clavulanate
were studied with 100 selected clinical Escherichia coli isolates with different Resistance to
A high variability in resistance frequencies to We introduced a commercial microdilution panel in our clinical
laboratory for routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing. This panel
contains ampicillin-sulbactam as the only (Part of this work was presented at the 38th Interscience Conference on
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Diego, Calif, 24 to 27 September 1998 [19].)
Bacterial isolates.
A total of 100 E. coli
clinical isolates, each from a separate patient and each with a
different ampicillin-sulbactam susceptibility MIC by the microdilution
PASCO susceptibility testing system (Difco, Detroit, Mich.), were
collected during late 1997. Sixty-two ampicillin- and
ampicillin-sulbactam-resistant (>16 and >16/8 µg/ml, respectively) E. coli clinical isolates were selected. In addition,
17 ampicillin-resistant, ampicillin-sulbactam-intermediate (16 and
>16/8 µg/ml, respectively) and 5 ampicillin-resistant,
ampicillin-sulbactam-susceptible isolates (>16 and Susceptibility testing and antibiotics.
Susceptibility
profiles obtained by the standard disk diffusion (16) and
agar dilution (15) techniques and with the microdilution PASCO system were used to define different
0066-4804/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Ampicillin-Sulbactam and Amoxicillin-Clavulanate
Susceptibility Testing of Escherichia coli Isolates with
Different
-Lactam Resistance Phenotypes
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
-lactam susceptibility phenotypes by standard agar dilution and disk diffusion techniques and with a
commercial microdilution system (PASCO). A fixed ratio (2:1) and a
fixed concentration (clavulanate, 2 and 4 µg/ml; sulbactam, 8 µg/ml) were used in the agar dilution technique. The resistance frequencies for amoxicillin-clavulanate with different techniques were
as follows: fixed ratio agar dilution, 12%; fixed concentration 4-µg/ml agar dilution, 17%; fixed ratio microdilution, 9%; and disk
diffusion, 9%. Marked discrepancies were found when these results were
compared with those obtained with ampicillin-sulbactam (26 to 52%
resistance), showing that susceptibility to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid
cannot be predicted by testing the isolate against
ampicillin-sulbactam. Interestingly, the discrimination between
susceptible and intermediate isolates was better achieved with 4 µg
of clavulanate per ml than with the fixed ratio. In contrast,
amoxicillin susceptibility was not sufficiently restored when 2 µg of
clavulanate per ml was used, particularly in moderate (mean
-lactamase activity, 50.8 mU/mg of protein) and high-level (215 mU/mg) TEM-1
-lactamase producer isolates. Four micrograms of
clavulanate per milliliter could be a reasonable alternative to the 2:1
fixed ratio, because most high-level
-lactamase-hyperproducing
isolates would be categorized as nonsusceptible, and low- and
moderate-level
-lactamase-producing isolates would be categorized as
nonresistant. This approach cannot be applied to sulbactam, either with
the fixed 2:1 ratio or with the 8-µg/ml fixed concentration, because
many low-level
-lactamase-producing isolates would be classified in
the resistant category. These findings call for a review of breakpoints
for
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor combinations.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor combinations in Escherichia
coli isolates has been widely reported to be mainly due to TEM-1
-lactamase hyperproduction, usually encoded by small multicopy
plasmids (14, 31, 38). Moreover, susceptibility to these
combinations in this organism is also affected by modified outer
membrane permeability (24), inhibitor-resistant TEM (IRT) and OXA-type plasmid-mediated enzyme production (3, 10, 31, 40), and/or chromosomal AmpC
-lactamase hyperproduction
(13, 35). It is also known that not all
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor combinations are equally affected
by these mechanisms (1, 3, 10, 24).
-lactam-
-lactam
inhibitor combinations has been reported, depending not only on the
inhibitor but also on the susceptibility testing method and inoculum
size used (1, 20, 24, 36). On the other hand,
-lactamase
inhibitor stability may also decline during storage in microdilution
panels used by automatic susceptibility testing systems, thus resulting
in false resistance (34). In addition, there are significant
differences in breakpoint categorization between different committees
(2, 4, 15), and the use of a fixed inhibitor concentration
or a fixed
-lactam/inhibitor concentration ratio is still the
subject of debate (6, 33).
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor combination. Initially, the ampicillin-sulbactam
susceptibility result was tentatively used as a predictor for
susceptibility to other aminopenicillin-
-lactamase inhibitor
combinations (mainly amoxicillin-clavulanate). During the first 2 months this system was used, more than 90% of E. coli
ampicillin-resistant isolates were also apparently resistant to
ampicillin-sulbactam. Because ampicillin-sulbactam resistance
frequencies were higher than those previously published for
amoxicillin-clavulanate (20, 25, 30, 31), we decided to
compare them with those obtained for the amoxicillin-clavulanate
combination by using a commercial microdilution panel from the same
manufacturer with a selected collection of E. coli clinical
isolates. Results from conventional disk diffusion and agar dilution
methods performed at the fixed
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor
ratio of 2:1 and at fixed concentrations of sulbactam of 8 µg/ml and
clavulanic acid of 2 and 4 µg/ml were also compared.
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
4/2 µg/ml,
respectively) were included as representatives of the scarce population
for which these MICs were applicable. No ampicillin-resistant isolates
were found for which the ampicillin-sulbactam MICs were
4/2 µg/ml.
Finally, the collection was completed with 16 ampicillin-susceptible
isolates (ampicillin-sulbactam,
4/2 µg/ml) for comparative
purposes. After susceptibility testing by agar dilution, PASCO
microdilution, and disk diffusion for ampicillin-sulbactam,
amoxicillin-clavulanate, and other antibiotics, the strains were
grouped into six different phenotypes. The identification to the
species level of the E. coli isolates was also performed with the microdilution PASCO system.
-lactam phenotypes. For
this purpose, ampicillin, amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, cefazolin, ticarcillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefuroxime, cefoxitin, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, cefepime, ampicillin-sulbactam, aztreonam, imipenem, and meropenem inhibition zones and/or MICs were used. MICs of
amoxicillin-clavulanate and ampicillin-sulbactam were obtained at the
fixed ratio of 2:1 both with the PASCO system and by the agar dilution
method. Moreover, a fixed inhibitor concentration was also used in the
agar dilution method (amoxicillin-clavulanate, 2 and 4 µg/ml,
respectively; and ampicillin-sulbactam, 8 µg/ml).
Phenotype definition.
E. coli isolates were classified
into six different phenotypes according to the following criteria (i) S
phenotype isolates were susceptible to all
-lactams tested. (ii) TL
phenotype isolates were resistant to aminopenicillins and ticarcillin,
susceptible to amoxicillin-clavulanate, and susceptible or intermediate
to ampicillin-sulbactam (may correspond to the low-level production of
TEM-1
-lactamase). (iii) TI phenotype isolates were resistant to
aminopenicillins and ticarcillin, susceptible to
amoxicillin-clavulanate, and resistant to ampicillin-sulbactam
(may correspond to intermediate-level production of TEM-1
-lactamase). (iv) TH-IRT phenotype isolates were resistant to
aminopenicillins and ticarcillin, intermediate or resistant to
amoxicillin-clavulanate, and resistant to ampicillin-sulbactam (may
correspond to high-level production of TEM-1
-lactamase or the
presence of IRT enzymes). (v) ES
L phenotype isolates were resistant
to aminopenicillins, ticarcillin, and cefazolin and gave a positive
result in the double disk diffusion test (8) (and therefore
were expected to produce an extended-spectrum
-lactamase). (vi) CP
phenotype isolates were resistant to aminopenicillins,
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor combinations, narrow-spectrum
cephalosporins, and cephamycins (may correspond to high-level
production of chromosomal cephalosporinase and/or TEM-1
-lactamase
in permeability-modified isolates).
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor combinations were established
according to the results obtained by the three different techniques
(agar dilution fixed ratio, microdilution, and disk diffusion).
Nevertheless, because discrepancies may exist between them
(21), the possibility of a one-step discrepancy with one of
these three techniques was allowed for.
Breakpoints.
The breakpoints defined by the National
Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) (15, 16)
were used with the results obtained by disk diffusion and with the
dilution used in the fixed ratio techniques. In addition,
susceptibility criteria recommended by Mesa Española de
Normalización de la Sensibilidad y Resistencia a los
Antimicrobianos (MENSURA) (2) were used with results for
amoxicillin-clavulanate and ampicillin-sulbactam obtained at the fixed
inhibitor concentrations of 2 and 8 µg/ml, respectively. The
concentrations
4/4 µg/ml and >16/4 µg/ml were taken as
susceptibility and resistance criteria, respectively, for
amoxicillin-clavulanate at the fixed inhibitor concentration of 4 µg/ml.
Isoelectric focusing and
-lactamase detection.
Analytical
isoelectric focusing was performed by applying crude sonic extract to
Phast gels (pH gradients of 3 to 9 and 4 to 6.5) in a Phast system
(Pharmacia AB, Uppsala, Sweden) (7).
-Lactamases with
known pIs were focused in parallel with the extracts, by using
nitrocefin (Oxoid, Ltd., Basingstoke, Hampshire, England) for
detection. Specific
-lactamase activity was determined by measuring
the decrease in A482 for 50 µM nitrocefin in
crude sonic extracts. Enzyme activity was standardized against the
total protein concentration in the enzyme preparation, as estimated by
Lowry et al. (12). One unit of enzymatic activity was
defined as the amount of enzyme that hydrolyzes 1 µmol of nitrocefin
in 1 min at 25°C in 0.1 M sodium potasium buffer (pH 7.2).
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
According to the criteria established above, the 100 E. coli isolates were classified as susceptible,
intermediate, or resistant to
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor
combinations. Results for amoxicillin-clavulanate and
ampicillin-sulbactam by disk diffusion, commercial broth microdilution, and agar dilution techniques are shown in Table
1. Isolates investigated by
commercial microdilution, agar dilution (fixed ratio and 4-µg/ml clavulanate fixed concentration), and disk diffusion techniques, in
contrast with the initial 62% resistance to ampicillin-sulbactam, showed similar frequencies of resistance (9 to 12%) to
amoxicillin-clavulanate. On the other hand, a high rate of resistance
to amoxicillin-clavulanate was observed with 2 µg of clavulanate per
ml (48%) by the agar dilution method. This value was similar to that
obtained by the agar dilution method with 8 µg of sulbactam per ml
(49%). Remarkable discrepancies were observed regarding resistance
frequencies for ampicillin-sulbactam by commercial microdilution (62%)
and disk diffusion (26%) techniques. In contrast, the discrepancy was
lower when results obtained by ampicillin-sulbactam disk diffusion and amoxicillin-clavulanate disk diffusion, commercial broth microdilution, and agar dilution (fixed ratio and 4 µg of clavulanate per ml) techniques were compared (Table 1).
|
E. coli isolates were grouped by phenotypes according to the
criteria stated in Materials and Methods. Phenotypes ES
L, S, TL, TI,
TH-IRT, and CP included 1, 16, 31, 28, 18, and 6 isolates, respectively. Table 2 summarizes the MIC
range, MIC at which 50% of the isolates are inhibited
(MIC50), MIC90, and geometric mean MICs for
amoxicillin-clavulanate and ampicillin-sulbactam obtained by dilution
methods for each phenotype. Inhibition diameter ranges and inhibition
diameter geometric means for the disk diffusion method are also shown
in Table 2. Note that the MIC50 of amoxicillin-clavulanate for the TL and TI phenotypes by microdilution and agar dilution (2:1
ratio) remained just twofold above the MIC50 corresponding to the S phenotype, whereas those of ampicillin-sulbactam were four-
and eightfold above the MIC50 for each phenotype,
respectively (Table 2).
|
As expected, a poor correlation between amoxicillin-clavulanate and ampicillin-sulbactam MIC distributions was found, the latter being notoriously displaced to the right (Fig. 1). TL and TI phenotypes tended to be on the susceptible side of the diagram (left), while TH-IRT and CP phenotypes tended to be on the intermediate-resistant side (right).
|
-Lactamase isoelectric focusing studies were performed with five
isolates each of the S, TL, and TI phenotypes and with all isolates
corresponding to the TH-IRT, ES
L, and CP phenotypes. As expected, no
-lactamase bands were found for isolates with the S phenotype, and a
band with a pI of 5.4 suggestive of a TEM-1
-lactamase was detected
in all isolates with TL and TI phenotypes. This pI 5.4 band was also
observed in all but two isolates with the TH-IRT phenotype. One of them
had a pI 7.4 band resembling an OXA-1
-lactamase, and the other had
a pI 7.6 band resembling an SHV-type
-lactamase. Four of six
isolates with the CP phenotype showed a band with a pI of >8,
suggesting an AmpC
-lactamase, whereas in the remaining two
isolates, only the pI 5.4 band was detected. For the putative ES
L
isolate, a band with a pI of between 7.8 and 8.0 was observed.
A
-lactamase specific activity was determined for five isolates each
of the TL, TI, and TH-IRT phenotypes. The range and mean values,
respectively, for these phenotypes were as follows: TL, 9.5 to 26.2 and
14.9 mU/mg; TI, 41.9 to 57.4 and 50.8 mU/mg; and TH, 58.5 to 543.8 and
215.4 mU/mg.
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
As in other members of the family Enterobacteriaceae,
resistance to
-lactam antibiotics in E. coli is mainly
due to the production of
-lactamases (9, 11).
Nevertheless, other mechanisms affecting the activity of these
antibiotics have been found. Porin-deficient mutants have been
described either alone or in association with
-lactamase production
(24, 28). They confer resistance to narrow-spectrum
cephalosporins as well as cephamycins. This resistance phenotype is
usually associated with resistance to other non-
-lactam antibiotics.
Modifications in penicillin binding proteins have also been described
to affect
-lactam activities (17), although this
mechanism remains uncommon. Chromosomal AmpC
-lactamase hyperproduction is found in 2 to 3% of all E. coli isolates
(18, 22, 28). Phenotypically, it is recognized by resistance
to aminopenicillins,
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor
combinations, narrow-spectrum cephalosporins, and cephamycins, as well
as, to a lesser extent, resistance to carboxy- and ureidopenicillins and extended-spectrum cephalosporins (11). Plasmid-mediated
-lactamases account for more than 90% of aminopenicillin-resistant E. coli isolates and even 60% of all E. coli
isolates in many hospitals (26, 27, 37).
Resistance to
-lactam inhibitor combinations may be caused by AmpC
hyperproduction as described above, this phenotype being easy to
recognize by its particular resistance mechanism. More difficult to
recognize is the
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor combination resistance due to plasmid-mediated
-lactamases, which could
represent a threat to therapeutic success. TEM-1 hyperproduction
(14, 31, 39, 40) and its inhibitor-resistant variant (IRT
enzymes) (31, 40) are the main factors responsible for such
resistance. Moreover,
-lactamase inhibitor combination resistance
might be due to the presence of other plasmid-mediated enzymes, i.e.,
of the OXA type (40), that may be represented in our series
by the strain producing a
-lactamase with a pI of 7.4. The TEM-1
-lactamase production level depends upon the number of plasmid copies, number of gene copies per plasmid, and promoter efficiency (10, 24). Various investigators have already pointed out the correlation between the level of resistance to inhibitor combinations and the amount of enzyme produced (35). This correlation was also observed in our study, because the TI, TL, and TH-IRT phenotypes, defined according the
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor combination resistance level, were shown to be dependent on the amount of enzyme
produced as well. The level of
-lactamase production affects susceptibility to amoxicillin-clavulanate as well as
ampicillin-sulbactam, although to a lesser extent, with organisms
remaining susceptible to the first combination when small and moderate
amounts of enzyme are produced.
Clavulanate has been previously described to be a better inhibitor of
broad-spectrum plasmid-mediated
-lactamases than sulbactam (20,
21). This can certainly be elucidated from our results as well.
Note that only 9, 9, and 12 isolates of the 52 isolates resistant to
ampicillin-sulbactam by agar dilution were resistant to
amoxicillin-clavulanate by disk diffusion, PASCO microdilution, and
agar dilution at a fixed inhibitor ratio, respectively. In general,
distributions of the MICs of both
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor
combinations were similar, but were 1 to 2 dilutions higher for
ampicillin-sulbactam (Fig. 1). The TL and TI phenotypes were
essentially susceptible to amoxicillin-clavulanate, whereas TH-IRT was
intermediate or resistant. For ampicillin-sulbactam, even the TL
phenotype was not fully susceptible. With the NCCLS criteria,
discrepancies between both combinations were noted in our series, and
thus ampicillin-sulbactam is a bad predictor for amoxicillin-clavulanate susceptibility; therefore, both antibiotics or,
specifically, the one that is intended to be used as a therapeutic option must be tested.
Susceptibility testing of
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor
combinations at a fixed ratio or at a fixed concentration is
still controversial (6, 22, 33). The peak clavulanate
concentration in serum after oral administration is not much higher
than 2 µg/ml, whereas the concentration of sulbactam in serum reaches
16 µg/ml (5, 32). If breakpoints and criteria established
by French and Spanish committees for the antibiogram (2, 4)
are used, the results are dramatically different for
amoxicillin-clavulanate. Overall, nonsusceptibility (intermediate plus
resistant) increases up to 62%, thus showing that 2 µg of
clavulanate per ml is not enough to restore amoxicillin susceptibility
on many occasions. By using either the Spanish or French criteria
(8-µg/ml sulbactam fixed concentration), ampicillin-sulbactam
resistance remains at about the same level as with NCCLS criteria, but
this is not surprising, because both breakpoints are quite similar (8/8
versus 8/4 µg/ml, respectively). Clinical data support the
susceptibility 8- and 4-µg/ml breakpoint for amoxicillin-clavulanate,
although the concentration of 4 µg of clavulanate per ml is hardly
attainable in serum (32). Moreover, a dynamic interaction of
-lactamase inhibitors with newly synthesized enzyme is expected to
occur. Multiple doses over a 24-h period are administered to patients, whereas a single inhibitor concentration is used for susceptibility testing. This rationale may justify an initial inhibitor concentration in susceptibility testing higher than that reached in serum.
Some investigators have suggested the possibility of using amoxicillin with 4 µg of clavulanate per ml (32, 33), keeping 8/4 µg/ml as the breakpoints for susceptibility. This approach could displace the intermediate isolates to a slightly higher MIC and help separate truly susceptible isolates from intermediate-resistant isolates (Fig. 1d). Such criteria could be a reasonable alternative to the 2:1 ratio combination. In the present study, we found similar results with the susceptibility frequencies of the 2:1 ratio and 4-µg/ml concentration of clavulanate being quite similar. Intermediate and resistant frequencies were lower and higher, respectively, with 4 µg of clavulanate per ml than the corresponding values for the 2:1 ratio (Table 1). This finding is consistently observed with the analysis of MIC50s and MIC90s (Table 2).
For ampicillin-sulbactam, based on the attainable concentration in serum and the discrepancies from disk diffusion results, a 1:1 fixed ampicillin-sulbactam ratio or even a 16-µg/ml fixed sulbactam concentration (breakpoints of 8/8 and 8/16 µg/ml, respectively) could be considered, as some investigators have pointed out (32). This change would reduce the discrepancies from the disk diffusion method and the amoxicillin-clavulanate results; moreover, it probably would correlate with the difference in levels reached by both antibiotics in serum.
In conclusion, discrepancies found between
amoxicillin-clavulanate and ampicillin-sulbactam resistance
levels are high in E. coli, at least when the NCCLS
breakpoint criteria are used. The susceptibility of the former is
difficult to predict when the susceptibility results from the latter
are used. These discrepancies seem to be related in part to the amount
of enzyme produced and therefore could be useful to phenotypically
detect
-lactamase hyperproduction. Four micrograms of clavulanate
per milliliter could be a reasonable alternative to the 2:1 fixed
ratio, because most high-level
-lactamase-hyperproducing isolates
would be categorized as nonsusceptible and low- and moderate-level
-lactamase-producing isolates would be categorized as nonresistant.
This approach cannot be applied to sulbactam, either with a fixed 2:1
ratio or with an 8-µg/ml fixed concentration, because many low-level
-lactamase-producing isolates would be classified in the resistant
category. These findings call for a review of breakpoints for
-lactam-
-lactamase inhibitor combinations.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Carretera de Colmenar Km 9.1, 28034-Madrid, Spain. Phone: 34-913368330. Fax: 34-913368809. E-mail: rafael.canton{at}hrc.es.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Aldridge, K. E.,
C. V. Sanders, and R. L. Marier.
1986.
Variation in the potentiation of -lactam antibiotic activity by clavulanic acid and sulbactam against multiply antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
17:463-469 |
| 2. | Baquero, F., J. Martínez-Beltrán, R. Cantón, and los Restantes Miembros del Grupo MENSURA. 1997. Criterios del Grupo MENSURA para la definición de los puntos críticos de sensibilidad a los antibióticos. Rev. Esp. Quimioter. 10:303-313. |
| 3. |
Blázquez, J.,
M.-R. Baquero,
R. Cantón,
I. Alos, and F. Baquero.
1993.
Characterization of a new TEM-type beta-lactamase resistant to clavulanate, sulbactam, and tazobactam in a clinical isolate of Escherichia coli.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
37:2059-2063 |
| 4. |
Comité de Antibiograme de la Société Fran aise de Microbiologie.
1996.
Statement 1996. CA-SFM. Zone sizes and MIC breakpoints for non-fastidious organisms.
Clin. Microbiol. Infect.
2(Suppl. 1):S46-S49.
|
| 5. | Foulds, G. 1986. Pharmacokinetics of sulbactam/ampicillin in humans: a review. Rev. Infect. Dis. 8:S503-S511. |
| 6. |
Greenwood, D.
1996.
Fixed or variable concentrations of beta-lactamase inhibitors in in-vitro tests?
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
38:17-20 |
| 7. |
Huovinen, S.
1988.
Rapid isoelectric focusing of plasmid-mediated -lactamases with Pharmacia PhastSystem.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
32:1730-1732 |
| 8. |
Jarlier, V.,
M. H. Nicolas,
G. Fournier, and A. Philippon.
1988.
Extended spectrum -lactamases conferring transferable resistance to newer -lactam agents in Enterobacteriaceae: hospital prevalence and susceptibility patterns.
Rev. Infect. Dis.
10:867-878[Medline].
|
| 9. |
Liu, P. Y.,
D. Gur,
L.-M. Hall, and D. M. Livermore.
1997.
Survey of the prevalence of beta-lactamases amongst 1000 gram-negative bacilli isolated consecutively at the Royal London Hospital.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
39:1-3 |
| 10. |
Livermore, D. M.
1993.
Determinants of the activity of betalactamase inhibitor combinations.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
31:9-21 |
| 11. |
Livermore, D. M.
1995.
-Lactamases in laboratory and clinical resistance.
Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
8:557-584[Abstract].
|
| 12. |
Lowry, O. H.,
N. J. Rosebrough,
A. L. Farr, and R. J. Randall.
1951.
Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent.
J. Biol. Chem.
193:265-275 |
| 13. | Marre, R., and S. Aleksic. 1990. Beta-lactamase types and beta-lactam resistance of Escherichia coli strains with chromosomally mediated ampicillin resistance. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 9:44-46[Medline]. |
| 14. | Martinez, J. L., E. Cercenado, M. Rodríguez-Creixems, M. F. Vicente-Pérez, A. Delgado-Iribarren, and F. Baquero. 1987. Resistance to beta-lactam/clavulanate. Lancet ii:1473. |
| 15. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1997. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Approved standard M7-A4. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 16. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1997. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. Approved standard M2-A6. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 17. | Neu, H. C. 1987. Penicillin-binding proteins and beta-lactamases: their effects on the use of cephalosporins and other new beta-lactams. Curr. Clin. Top. Infect. Dis. 8:37-61[Medline]. |
| 18. | Normark, S., S. Lindquist, and F. Lindberg. 1986. Chromosomal beta-lactam resistance in enterobacteria. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 49:38-45. |
| 19. | Oliver, A., M. Pérez-Vázquez, M. Martínez-Ferrer, F. Baquero, S. Valdezate, and R. Cantón. Ampicillin-sulbactam and co-amoxiclav susceptibility testing on Escherichia coli: fixed ratio or fixed concentration?, abstr. D-46, p. 142. In Program and abstracts of the 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 20. | O'Shaughnessy, E. M., G. A. Fahle, and F. G. Witebsky. 1997. Correlation of in vitro susceptibility results for amoxicillin-clavulanate and ampicillin-sulbactam tested against Escherichia coli. J. Clin. Microbiol. 35:1902-1903[Abstract]. |
| 21. |
Payne, D. J.,
R. Cramp,
D. J. Winstanley, and D. J. C. Knowles.
1994.
Comparative activities of clavulanic acid, sulbactam, and tazobactam against clinically important -lactamases.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
38:767-772 |
| 22. | Pfaller, M. A., L. Barry, P. C. Fuchs, E. H. Gerlach, D. J. Hardy, and J. C. McLaughlin. 1993. Comparison of fixed concentration and fixed ratio options for dilution susceptibility testing of gram-negative bacilli to ampicillin and ampicillin/sulbactam. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 12:356-362[Medline]. |
| 23. |
Piddock, L. J.,
R. N. Walters,
Y. F. Jin,
H. L. Turner,
D. M. Gascoyne-Binzi, and P. M. Hawkey.
1997.
Prevalence and mechanism of resistance to 'third-generation' cephalosporins in clinically relevant isolates of Enterobacteriaceae from 43 hospitals in the UK, 1990-1991.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
39:177-187 |
| 24. |
Reguera, J. A.,
F. Baquero,
J. C. Pérez-Díaz, and J. L. Martínez.
1991.
Factors determining resistance to beta-lactam combined with beta-lactamase inhibitors in Escherichia coli.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
27:569-575 |
| 25. | Roy, C., C. Segura, A. Torrellas, R. Reig, D. Teruel, and M. Hermida. 1989. Activity of amoxycillin/clavulanate against beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 24:41-47. |
| 26. | Roy, C., C. Segura, M. Tirado, R. Reig, M. Hermida, D. Teruel, and A. Foz. 1985. Frequency of plasmid-determined beta-lactamases in 680 consecutively isolated strains of Enterobacteriaceae. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. 4:146-147[Medline]. |
| 27. | Sanders, C. C., and W. E. Sanders. 1992. Beta-lactam resistance in gram-negative bacteria: global trends and clinical impact. Clin. Infect. Dis. 15:824-839[Medline]. |
| 28. | Sawai, T., A. Yamaguchi, and R. Hiruma. 1988. Effect of interaction between outer membrane permeability and beta-lactamase production on resistance to beta-lactam agents in gram-negative bacteria. Rev. Infect. Dis. 10:761-764[Medline]. |
| 29. | Schumacher, H., U. Skibsted, R. Skov, and J. Scheibel. 1996. Cefuroxime resistance in Escherichia coli. Resistance mechanisms and prevalence APMIS 104:531-538[Medline]. |
| 30. |
Seetulsingh, P. S.,
L. M. Hall, and D. M. Livermore.
1991.
Activity of clavulanate combinations against TEM-1 beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli isolates obtained in 1982 and 1989.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
27:749-759 |
| 31. | Stapleton, P., P.-J. Wu, A. King, K. Shannon, G. French, and I. Phillips. 1995. Incidence and mechanisms of resistance to the combination of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid in Escherichia coli. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39:2478-2483[Abstract]. |
| 32. |
Stephen, G., and P. D. Jenkins.
1992.
Antimicrobial susceptibility tests for -lactam- -lactamase inhibitor: predictors of clinical efficacy?
Clin. Microbiol. Newsl.
14:89-91.
|
| 33. | Thomson, C. J., R. S. Miles, and S. G. Amyes. 1995. Susceptibility testing with clavulanic acid: fixed concentration versus fixed ratio. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39:2591-2592[Medline]. |
| 34. | Valdezate, S., J. Martínez-Beltrán, L. de-Rafael, F. Baquero, and R. Cantón. 1996. Beta-lactam stability in frozen microdilution PASCO MIC panels using strains with known resistance mechanisms as biosensors. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 26:53-61[Medline]. |
| 35. | Vanjak, D., C. Mulleys, B. Picard, E. Bergogne-Berezin, and N. Lambert-Zechovsky. 1995. Activity of beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations on Escherichia coli isolates exhibiting various patterns of resistance to beta-lactam agents. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 14:972-978[Medline]. |
| 36. | Villar, H. E., M. B. Jugo, A. Fernández-Lausi, and A. E. Farinati. 1996. Errores del método de difusión en agar para predecir la susceptibilidad de Escherichia coli frente a ampicilina-sulbactam y amoxicilina-ácido clavulánico. Enferm. Infecc. Microbiol. Clin. 14:308-310[Medline]. |
| 37. |
Wiedemann, B.,
C. Kliebe, and M. Kresken.
1989.
Epidemiology of beta-lactamases.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
24:1-22 |
| 38. |
Wu, P. J.,
K. Shannon, and I. Phillips.
1995.
Mechanisms of hyperproduction of TEM-1 -lactamase by clinical isolates of Escherichia coli.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
36:927-939 |
| 39. |
Wu, P.-J.,
K. Shannon, and I. Phillips.
1994.
Effect of hyperproduction of TEM-1 -lactamase on in vitro susceptibility of Escherichia coli to -lactam antibiotics.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
38:494-498 |
| 40. |
Zhou, X. Y.,
F. Bordon,
D. Sirot,
M.-D. Kitzis, and L. Gutmann.
1994.
Emergence of clinical isolates of Escherichia coli producing TEM-1 derivatives or an OXA-1 -lactamase conferring resistance to -lactamase inhibitors.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
38:1085-1089 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»