Antimicrobial Susceptibility of 6685 Organisms Isolated from Canadian Hospitals: CANWARD 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is a growing problem in North American hospitals as well as hospitals worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To assess the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of commonly used agents against the 20 most common organisms isolated from Canadian hospitals. METHODS: In total, 7881 isolates were obtained between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, from 12 hospitals across Canada as part of the Canadian Ward Surveillance Study (CANWARD 2007). Of these, 6685 isolates (20 most common organisms) obtained from bacteremic, urinary, respiratory and wound specimens underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Susceptibility testing was assessed using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution method. RESULTS: The most active (based upon minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] data only) agents against methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) were dalbavancin, daptomycin, linezolid, telavancin, tigecycline and vancomycin, with MICs required to inhibit the growth of 90% of organisms (MIC90) of 0.06 μg/mL and 0.06 μg/mL, 0.25 μg/mL and 0.25 μg/mL, 4 μg/mL and 1 μg/mL, 0.25 μg/mL and 0.25 μg/mL, 0.5 μg/mL and 0.25 μg/mL, and 1 μg/mL and 2 μg/mL, respectively. The most active agents against vancomycin‐resistant enterococci were daptomycin, linezolid and tigecycline with MIC of 2 μg/mL, 4 μg/mL and 0.12 μg/mL, respectively. The most active agents against Escherichia coli were amikacin, cefepime, ertapenem, meropenem, piperacillin‐tazobactam and tigecycline with MIC of 4 μg/mL, 2 μg/mL, 0.06 μg/mL or less, 0.12 μg/mL or less, 4 μg/mL and 1 μg/mL, respectively. The most active agents against extendedspectrum beta‐lactamase‐producing E coli were ertapenem, meropenem and tigecycline with MIC of 0.12 μg/mL or less, 0.12 μg/mL or less and 1 μg/mL, respectively. The most active agents against Pseudomonas aeruginosa were amikacin, cefepime, meropenem and piperacillin‐tazobactam with MIC of 32 μg/mL, 32 μg/mL, 8 μg/mL and 64 μg/mL, respectively. The most active agents against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia were tigecycline and trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole and levofloxacin with MIC of 8 μg/mL, 8 μg/mL and 8 μg/mL, respectively. The most active agents against Acinetobacter baumannii were amikacin, fluoroquinolones (eg, levofloxacin), meropenem, and tigecycline with MIC of 2 μg/mL or less, 1 μg/mL, 4 μg/mL and 2 μg/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The most active agents versus Gram‐positive cocci from Canadian hospitals were vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, tigecycline, dalbavancin and telavancin. The most active agents versus Gram‐negative bacilli from Canadian hospitals were amikacin, cefepime, ertapenem (not P aeruginosa ), meropenem, piperacillintazobactam and tigecycline (not P aeruginosa ). Colistin (polymyxin E) was very active against P aeruginosa and A baumannii .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".