A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Disk Diffusion Testing for Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococci: Does Moxalactam Improve upon Cefoxitin? | LitMetric

Disk diffusion testing is widely used to detect methicillin resistance in staphylococci, and cefoxitin is currently considered the best marker for mecA-mediated methicillin resistance. In low-inoculum diffusion testing (colony suspension at 10 CFU/ml), the addition of moxalactam in combination with cefoxitin has been reported to improve on cefoxitin alone for the detection of methicillin-heteroresistant staphylococci. However, moxalactam is absent from EUCAST and CLSI guidelines, which use high-inoculum diffusion testing (colony suspension at 10 CFU/ml), calling into question the potential interest of including moxalactam in their recommendations. The inhibition zone diameters of cefoxitin and moxalactam, alone and in combination, were evaluated for concordance with mecA and mecC positivity in a large collection of clinical Staphylococcus isolates (611 Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus lugdunensis, and Staphylococcus saprophyticus isolates and 307 coagulase-negative staphylococci other than S. lugdunensis and S. saprophyticus isolates, of which 22% and 53% were mecA-positive, respectively) and in 25 mecC-positive S. aureus isolates using high-inoculum diffusion testing. Receiver operating characteristic, sensitivity, and specificity analyses indicated that the detection of mecA- and mecC-positive and negative isolates did not improve with moxalactam, either alone or in combination with cefoxitin, compared to cefoxitin alone. These findings were similar in both the S. aureus/S. lugdunensis/S. saprophyticus group and in the coagulase-negative staphylococci group. Our results do not support the use of moxalactam as an additional marker of methicillin resistance when testing with high-inoculum disk diffusion.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5121378PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01195-16DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

diffusion testing
20
disk diffusion
12
methicillin resistance
12
moxalactam combination
12
staphylococci moxalactam
8
testing colony
8
colony suspension
8
suspension cfu/ml
8
combination cefoxitin
8
high-inoculum diffusion
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!