Susceptibility testing and reporting of new antibiotics with a focus on tedizolid: an international working group report

Inappropriate use and overuse of antibiotics are among the most important factors in resistance development, and effective antibiotic stewardship measures are needed to optimize outcomes. Selection of appropriate antimicrobials relies on accurate and timely antimicrobial susceptibility testing. However, the availability of clinical breakpoints and in vitro susceptibility testing often lags behind regulatory approval by several years for new antimicrobials. A Working Group of clinical/medical microbiologists from Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the UK recently examined issues surrounding antimicrobial susceptibility testing for novel antibiotics. While commercially available tests are being developed, potential surrogate antibiotics may be used as marker of susceptibility. Using tedizolid as an example of a new antibiotic, this special report makes recommendations to optimize routine susceptibility reporting

Immunomodulatory Effects of Macrolides Considering Evidence from Human and Veterinary Medicine

Macrolide antimicrobial agents have been in clinical use for more than 60 years in both human and veterinary medicine. The discovery of the non-antimicrobial properties of macrolides and the effect of immunomodulation of the inflammatory response has benefited patients with chronic airway diseases and impacted morbidity and mortality. This review examines the evidence of antimicrobial and non-antimicrobial properties of macrolides in human and veterinary medicine with a focus toward veterinary macrolides but including important and relevant evidence from the human literature. The complete story for these complex and important molecules is continuing to be written

Mutant prevention and minimum inhibitory concentration drug values for enrofloxacin, ceftiofur, florfenicol, tilmicosin and tulathromycin tested against swine pathogens Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Pasteurella multocida and Streptococcus suis.

Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Pasteurella multocida and Streptococcus suis are prevalent bacterial causes of swine infections. Morbidity, mortality and positively impacting the financial burden of infection occurs with appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Increasing antimicrobial resistance complicates drug therapy and resistance prevention is now a necessity to optimize therapy and prolong drug life. Mutant bacterial cells are said to arise spontaneously in bacterial densities of 107-109 or greater colony forming units/ml. Antibiotic drug concentration inhibiting growth of the least susceptible cell in these high density populations has been termed the mutant prevention concentration (MPC). In this study MPC and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of ceftiofur, enrofloxacin, florfenicol, tilmicosin and tulathromycin were determined against the swine pathogens A. pleuropneumoniae, P.multocida and S. suis. The following MIC90/MPC90 values (mg/L) for 67 A. pleuropneumoniae and 73 P. multocida strains respectively were as follows: A. pleuropneumoniae 0.031/0.5, ≤0.016/0.5, 0.5/2, 4/32, 2/32; P. multocida 0.004/0.25, 0.016/0.125, 0.5/0.5, 8/16, 0.5/1. For 33 S. suis strains, MIC90 values (mg/L) respectively were as follows: 1, 0.25, 4, ≥8 and ≥8. A total of 16 S. suis strains with MIC values of 0.063-0.5 mg/L to ceftiofur and 0.25-0.5 mg/L to enrofloxacin were tested by MPC; MPC values respectively were 0.5 and 1 mg/L respectively. MPC concentrations provide a dosing target which may serve to reduce amplification of bacterial subpopulations with reduced antimicrobial susceptibility. Drug potency based on MIC90 values was ceftiofur > enrofloxacin >florfenicol = tulathromycin > tilmicosin; based on MPC90 values was enrofloxacin > ceftiofur > tulathromycin > florfenicol ≥ tilmicosin

In Vitro Killing of Canine Urinary Tract Infection Pathogens by Ampicillin, Cephalexin, Marbofloxacin, Pradofloxacin, and Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole

Urinary tract infections are common in dogs, necessitating antimicrobial therapy. We determined the speed and extent of in vitro killing of canine urinary tract infection pathogens by five antimicrobial agents (ampicillin, cephalexin, marbofloxacin, pradofloxacin, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) following the first 3 h of drug exposure. Minimum inhibitory and mutant prevention drug concentrations were determined for each strain. In vitro killing was determined by exposing bacteria to clinically relevant drug concentrations and recording the log10 reduction and percent kill in viable cells at timed intervals. Marbofloxacin and pradofloxacin killed more bacterial cells, and faster than other agents, depending on the time of sampling and drug concentration. Significant differences were seen between drugs for killing Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Enterococcus faecalis, and Staphylococcus pseudintermedius strains. At the maximum urine drug concentrations, significantly more E. coli cells were killed by marbofloxacin than by ampicillin (p p p p p < 0.0001), following 5 min of drug exposure. Rapid killing of bacteria should inform thinking on drug selection for short course therapy for uncomplicated UTIs, without compromising patient care, and is consistent with appropriate antimicrobial use and stewardship principles

In Vitro Killing of Canine Urinary Tract Infection Pathogens by Ampicillin, Cephalexin, Marbofloxacin, Pradofloxacin, and Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole

Urinary tract infections are common in dogs, necessitating antimicrobial therapy. We determined the speed and extent of in vitro killing of canine urinary tract infection pathogens by five antimicrobial agents (ampicillin, cephalexin, marbofloxacin, pradofloxacin, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) following the first 3 h of drug exposure. Minimum inhibitory and mutant prevention drug concentrations were determined for each strain. In vitro killing was determined by exposing bacteria to clinically relevant drug concentrations and recording the log10 reduction and percent kill in viable cells at timed intervals. Marbofloxacin and pradofloxacin killed more bacterial cells, and faster than other agents, depending on the time of sampling and drug concentration. Significant differences were seen between drugs for killing Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Enterococcus faecalis, and Staphylococcus pseudintermedius strains. At the maximum urine drug concentrations, significantly more E. coli cells were killed by marbofloxacin than by ampicillin (p &lt; 0.0001), cephalexin (p &lt; 0.0001), and TMP/SMX (p &lt; 0.0001) and by pradofloxacin than by cephalexin (p &lt; 0.0001) and TMP/SMX (p &lt; 0.0001), following 5 min of drug exposure. Rapid killing of bacteria should inform thinking on drug selection for short course therapy for uncomplicated UTIs, without compromising patient care, and is consistent with appropriate antimicrobial use and stewardship principles