Broth Microdilution and E-Test for Determining Fluoroquinolone Activity against <i>Streptococcus Pneumoniae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare broth microdilution and E-test minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 4 fluoroquinolones against Streptococcus pneumoniae and to determine the effect of these in vitro MIC methods on the calculation of AUC00-24/MIC ratios. METHODS: Levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gemifloxacin MICs were determined by broth microdilution (incubated in air) and E-test (incubated in CO2) for 100 clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae. MIC50, MIC90, and geometric mean MIC were calculated. Steady-state serum concentration-time profiles were simulated for once-daily, oral dosing of levofloxacin 500 mg, gatifloxacin 400 mg, moxifloxacin 400 mg, and gemifloxacin 320 mg. After correcting for protein binding, AUC0-24 of unbound drug was calculated for each regimen, and AUC0-24/MIC ratios were calculated using MIC data from both in vitro methods. Differences in MICs between methods were determined for each agent using the paired t-test (after logarithmic transformation of MICs) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Differences in AUC0-24/MIC ratios were also determined using the paired t-test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The level of significance for all analyses was p < 0.05. RESULTS: Broth microdilution and E-test MICs were within +/- 1 log2 dilution for 94%, 93%, 61%, and 35% of the isolates for levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gemifloxacin, respectively. Broth microdilution MICs were significantly lower than E-test MICs for all 4 agents (p < 0.001). However, a categorical change in susceptibility was seen for only 1 isolate with gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin (intermediate by broth microdilution, resistant by E-test). AUC0-24/MIC ratios were significantly higher for each regimen when MICs were determined by broth microdilution compared with E-test (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant difference in the activity of the newer fluoroquinolones against S. pneumoniae when MICs are determined by broth microdilution and E-test. When evaluating fluoroquinolone activity and pharmacodynamics against this organism, clinicians must be aware that MIC testing methodology may have a significant impact on the results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".