Breakpoints in Antibiotic Sensitivity Testing and Their Clinical Relevance

REFERENCES

• Fleming A. On the antibacterial action of cultures of Pénicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae. Br J Exp Pathol 1929; 10: 226-229.
   Google Scholar
• Heatley NG. Method for assay of penicillin. Biochem J 1944; 38: 61-65.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kronvall G, Ringertz S. Antibiotic disk diffusion testing revisited. Single strain regression analysis. APMIS 1991; 99: 295-306.
   Google Scholar
• NCCLS. Development of in vitro susceptibility testing criteria and quality control parameters. Document M23-T. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Villanova PA, 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Ericsson F1M, Sherris JC. Antibiotic sensitivity testing: report of an international collaborative study. Act Pathol Microbiol Scand B 1971; suppl 217: 1 - 90.
   Google Scholar
• Report of Working Party. A guide to sensitivity testing. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27 (Suppl D): 1 - 80.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes EJ, Ridgway GL. Antibiotic sensitivity tests. In: Clinical Microbiology (6th ed) London, Edward Arnold 1987: 204 - 221.
   Google Scholar
• Brown DFJ. The comparative methods of antimicrobial susceptibility testing - time for a change? J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25: 307 - 310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mordenti J. Man versus beast: pharmacokinetic scaling in mammals. I Pharm Sei 1986; 75: 1028 - 1040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer AW, Kirby WMM, Sherris JC, Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol 1966; 45: 493 - 496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCCLS. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Document M100-S6. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, PA. 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Petersdorf RG, Plorde JJ. The usefulness of in vitro sensitivity tests in antibiotic therapy. Annu Rev Med 1963; 14: 41-56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Second Report of the Expert Committee on Antibiotics. Standardization of methods for conducting microbic sensitivity tests. Tech Rep Ser Wld Hlth Org 1961; 210: 1-24.
   Google Scholar
• Soussy CJ, Cluzel R, Courvalin P and the Comité de l'Antibiogramme de la Société Française de Microbiologie. Definition and determination of in vitro antibiotic susceptibility breakpoints for bacteria in France. Eurf Clin Microbiol Inf Dis 1994; 13: 238 - 246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Klingeren B, Mouton RP (eds). Standardization of susceptibility testing. Bilthoven, Dutch Working Party; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton-Miller JMT. Protein binding of antibiotics: does it matter? In: Serious Infections - Treatment and Prevention. London: Update Publications, 1985: 42 - 52.
   Google Scholar
• Mouton JWE, Vinks AATMM. Is continuous infusion of ß-lactam antibiotics worthwhile? Efficacy and pharmacokinetic considerations. J Antimicr Chemother 1996; 38: 5 - 15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munckhof WJ, Grayson ML, Turnidge JD. A meta- anklysis of studies on the safety and efficacy of aminoglycosides given either once daily or as divided doses. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 645 - 663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorian V, Gemmell C. Effect of low antibiotic concentrations on bacteria: effects on ultrastructure, virulence, and susceptibility to immunodefences. IN: Lorian V (ed) Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine 3rd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1991; 493 - 555.
   Google Scholar
• Ritts RE. Antibiotics as biological response modifiers. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 26 (suppl C): 31 - 36.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Vlem B, Vanholder R, De Paepe P, Vogelaers D, Ringoir S. Immunomodulating effects of antibiotics: literature review. Infection 1996; 24: 275 - 291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringertz S, Olsson-Liljequist B, Kronvall G. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae. Improvement of accuracy of the disc diffusion test. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 26: 479 - 489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manninen R, Eerola E, Huovinen P. Disk diffusion susceptibility tests: need for laboratory-specific breakpoints. Scand J Infect Dis 1995; 27: 45 - 49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzler CM, DeHaan RM. Susceptibility tests of anaerobic bacteria: statistical and clinical considerations. J Infect Dis 1974; 130: 588 - 594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton-Miller JMT. Definition of breakpoint for sensitivity to trimethoprim in Gram-positive cocci: use of Chauvenet's criterion. Microbios Lett 1987; 36: 65 - 69.
   Google Scholar
• Flamilton-Miller JMT. Use of laboratory tests in predicting the therapeutic efficacy of antimicrobial compounds. In: Brumfitt W, Hamilton-Miüer JMT ed. New Perspectives in Clinical Microbiology. London: Kluwer Medical, 1978; 31-43.
   Google Scholar
• McCabe WR, Jackson GG. Gram-negative bacteremia. II. Clinical, laboratory, and therapeutic observations. Arch Int Med 1962; 110; 856 - 864.
   Google Scholar
• Bodey GP, Jadeja L, Elting L. Pseudomonas bacteremia. Retrospective analysis of 410 episodes. Arch Int Med 1985; 145: 1621-1629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes MP. Influence of laboratory reports on prescribing of antimicrobials for urinary tract infection. J Clin Path 1980; 33: 481 - 483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturm AW. The laboratory and antibiotic prescribing. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15: 255 - 256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell S. The relevance of bacteriology tests to the clinical use of antibiotics in domiciliary practice. J Antimicrob Chemother 1976; 2: 110 - 111.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenwood D. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: are we wasting our time? Br J Biomed Sei 1993; 50: 31 - 34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milatovic D, Braveny I. Development of resistance during antibiotic therapy. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1987; 6: 1 - 11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brumfitt W, Hamilton-Miller JMT. Principles and practice of antimicrobial chemotherapy. In: Avery GS, ed, Drug Treatment, 3rd edition. New Zealand, ADIS Press; 1987: 1207 - 1235.
   Google Scholar
• Shah PM, Schafer V, Zieman M, Krauskopf S and Microbiological and Clinical Study Groups. Comparison of clinical response to cefpirome treatment and minimum inhibitory concentration of causative isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992; 29 (suppl A): 75 - 80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thornsberry C. Cefaclor AF: correlation of microbiology and clinical outcome. Postgrad Med J 1992; 68 (suppl 3): S10 - S16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• European Study Group on Antibiotic Breakpoints. Breakpoint determination; cefepime. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 13: 282 - 283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davey PG. Relationship between serum concentrations of antibacterial drugs and the outcome of bacterial infections. Res Clin Forums 1990; 12 (no 4): 35 - 43.
   Google Scholar
• Eudy WW. Correlations between in vitro sensitivity testing and therapeutic response in urinary tract infections. Urology 1973; 2: 519 - 524.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stamey TA, Fair WR, Timothy MM, Millar MA, Mihara G, Lowery YC. Serum versus urinary antimicrobial concentrations in cure of urinary tract infections. N Eng J Med 1974; 291: 1159 - 1163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson GG. Methods for the clinical evaluation of antibiotics in urinary tract infections. Scand J Infect Dis 1978; suppl 14: 289 - 294.
   Google Scholar
• Naber KG. Urinary antibiotic levels and their clinical relevance. Res Clin Forum 1990; 12 (no 4): 45 - 52.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton-Miller JMT. Antibiotic treatment of entero-coccal infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 2164.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenwood D. Fixed or variable concentrations of ß-lactamase inhibitors in in-vitro tests? J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 38: 17 - 20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brumfitt W, Hamilton-Miller JMT. Combinations of sulphonamides with diaminopyrimidines: how, when and why? J Chemother 1995; 7: 136 - 139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry AL, Jones RN, Thornsberry C. Reliability of cefaclor, cefazolin, cefamandole and cephalothin disks to predict susceptibility of Enterobacteriaceae, Staphylococcus species and Haemophilus influenzae. Am J Clin Pathol 1985; 84: 643 - 648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brumfitt W, Flamilton-Miller JMT, Cooper J. Clinical, pharmacokinetic and laboratory experience with cephradine. Proceedings 10th International Congress of Chemotherapy (Zurich, 1977), vol 2; Washington, American Society for Microbiology, 1978; 865 - 867.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton-Miller JMT, Iravani A, Brumfitt W, Byers KS, Dere WH. Comparative trials of cefaclor AF in uncomplicated cystitis and asymptomatic bacteriuria. Postgrad Med J 1992; 68 (suppl 3): S60 - S66.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cormican MG, Pfaller MA. Standardization of antifungal susceptibility testing. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 38: 561 - 578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odds FC. Resistance of clinically important yeasts to antifungal agents. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1996; 6: 145 - 147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar