In Vitro Activities of 15 Antimicrobial Agents against 110 Toxigenic <i>Clostridium difficile</i> Clinical Isolates Collected from 1983 to 2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence and severity of Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD) is increasing, and standard treatment is not always effective. Therefore, more-effective antimicrobial agents and treatment strategies are needed. We used the agar dilution method to determine the in vitro susceptibility of the following antimicrobials against 110 toxigenic clinical isolates of C. difficile from 1983 to 2004, primarily from the United States: doripenem, meropenem, gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, OPT-80, ramoplanin, rifalazil, rifaximin, nitazoxanide, tizoxanide, tigecycline, vancomycin, tinidazole, and metronidazole. Included among the isolates tested were six strains of the toxinotype III, NAP1/BI/027 group implicated in recent U.S., Canadian, and European outbreaks. The most active agents in vitro were rifaximin, rifalazil, tizoxanide, nitazoxanide, and OPT-80 with MICs at which 50% of the isolates are inhibited (MIC(50)) and MIC(90) values of 0.0075 and 0.015 microg/ml, 0.0075 and 0.03 microg/ml, 0.06 and 0.125 microg/ml, 0.06 and 0.125 microg/ml, 0.125 and 0.125 microg/ml, respectively. However, for three isolates the rifalazil and rifaximin MICs were very high (MIC of >256 microg/ml). Ramoplanin, vancomycin, doripenem, and meropenem were also very active in vitro with narrow MIC(50) and MIC(90) ranges. None of the isolates were resistant to metronidazole, the only agent for which there are breakpoints, with tinidazole showing nearly identical results. These in vitro susceptibility results are encouraging and support continued evaluation of selected antimicrobials in clinical trials of treatment for CDAD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".