We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Ocular TRUST: nationwide antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in ocular isolates.
American Journal of Ophthalmology 2008 June
PURPOSE: Ocular Tracking Resistance in U.S. Today (TRUST) annually evaluates in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae to ciprofloxacin, gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, penicillin, azithromycin, tobramycin, trimethoprim, and polymyxin B in national samples of ocular isolates.
DESIGN: Laboratory investigation.
METHODS: Prospectively collected ocular isolates (197 S. aureus, 49 S. pneumoniae, and 32 H. influenzae) from 35 institutions and archived ocular isolates (760 S. pneumoniae and 356 H. influenzae) from 34 institutions were tested by an independent, central laboratory. Mean minimum inhibitory concentrations that would inhibit growth of 90% of the tested isolates (MIC(90)) were interpreted as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant according to standardized breakpoints for systemic treatment. S. aureus isolates were classified as methicillin susceptible (MSSA) or methicillin resistant (MRSA).
RESULTS: MSSA or MRSA susceptibility patterns were virtually identical for the fluoroquinolones, that is, MSSA susceptibility was 79.9% to 81.1% and MRSA susceptibility was 15.2%. Trimethoprim was the only agent tested with high activity against MRSA. All S. pneumoniae isolates were susceptible to gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin; 89.8% were susceptible to ciprofloxacin. H. influenzae isolates were 100% susceptible to all tested agents but trimethoprim. Ocular TRUST 1 data were consistent with the eight-year longitudinal sample of archived ocular isolates.
CONCLUSIONS: The fluoroquinolones were consistently active in MSSA, S. pneumoniae, and H. influenzae. After more than a decade of intensive ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin use as systemic therapy, 100% of ocular S. pneumoniae isolates were susceptible to gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin; nonsusceptibility to ciprofloxacin was less than 15%. High-level in vitro MRSA resistance suggests the need to consider alternative therapy to fluoroquinolones when MRSA is a likely pathogen.
DESIGN: Laboratory investigation.
METHODS: Prospectively collected ocular isolates (197 S. aureus, 49 S. pneumoniae, and 32 H. influenzae) from 35 institutions and archived ocular isolates (760 S. pneumoniae and 356 H. influenzae) from 34 institutions were tested by an independent, central laboratory. Mean minimum inhibitory concentrations that would inhibit growth of 90% of the tested isolates (MIC(90)) were interpreted as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant according to standardized breakpoints for systemic treatment. S. aureus isolates were classified as methicillin susceptible (MSSA) or methicillin resistant (MRSA).
RESULTS: MSSA or MRSA susceptibility patterns were virtually identical for the fluoroquinolones, that is, MSSA susceptibility was 79.9% to 81.1% and MRSA susceptibility was 15.2%. Trimethoprim was the only agent tested with high activity against MRSA. All S. pneumoniae isolates were susceptible to gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin; 89.8% were susceptible to ciprofloxacin. H. influenzae isolates were 100% susceptible to all tested agents but trimethoprim. Ocular TRUST 1 data were consistent with the eight-year longitudinal sample of archived ocular isolates.
CONCLUSIONS: The fluoroquinolones were consistently active in MSSA, S. pneumoniae, and H. influenzae. After more than a decade of intensive ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin use as systemic therapy, 100% of ocular S. pneumoniae isolates were susceptible to gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin; nonsusceptibility to ciprofloxacin was less than 15%. High-level in vitro MRSA resistance suggests the need to consider alternative therapy to fluoroquinolones when MRSA is a likely pathogen.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app