抗菌药敏断点:PK-PD和药敏断点。

Treatments in respiratory medicine Pub Date : 2005-01-01
Paul G Ambrose
{"title":"抗菌药敏断点:PK-PD和药敏断点。","authors":"Paul G Ambrose","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since the early 1960s, considerable advancements have been made to standardize and provide quality assurance for clinical susceptibility testing procedures of antimicrobial agents. Controversy, however, remains as to the interpretation of clinical laboratory susceptibility test results. While some feel susceptibility breakpoints should only detect resistance mechanisms, others believe they should predict a high probability of clinical response. This has resulted in confusion among clinicians, as it has been apparent for some time that there can be discordance between interpretive test results and clinical response to therapy (generally cures of infections caused by resistant pathogens). Nearly simultaneous with the beginning of the standardization process for clinical susceptibility testing procedures, the first penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates were detected. During the ensuing decades, penicillin-resistant pneumococci became a greater clinical concern, resulting in macrolides emerging as safe therapeutic alternatives to beta-lactam agents for the treatment of community-acquired respiratory tract infections. During the last 10 years, the incidence of pneumococcal isolates with elevated macrolide minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values has also increased, yet the debate over the clinical meaning of these statistics persists. The youthful science of pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics provides a useful platform to determine which pneumococcal strains with elevated MIC values can be treated with contemporary dosing regimens and also facilitates the proper selection of antimicrobial breakpoints for all antimicrobial classes, including the newer macrolides.</p>","PeriodicalId":87162,"journal":{"name":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","volume":"4 Suppl 1 ","pages":"5-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antimicrobial susceptibility breakpoints: PK-PD and susceptibility breakpoints.\",\"authors\":\"Paul G Ambrose\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Since the early 1960s, considerable advancements have been made to standardize and provide quality assurance for clinical susceptibility testing procedures of antimicrobial agents. Controversy, however, remains as to the interpretation of clinical laboratory susceptibility test results. While some feel susceptibility breakpoints should only detect resistance mechanisms, others believe they should predict a high probability of clinical response. This has resulted in confusion among clinicians, as it has been apparent for some time that there can be discordance between interpretive test results and clinical response to therapy (generally cures of infections caused by resistant pathogens). Nearly simultaneous with the beginning of the standardization process for clinical susceptibility testing procedures, the first penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates were detected. During the ensuing decades, penicillin-resistant pneumococci became a greater clinical concern, resulting in macrolides emerging as safe therapeutic alternatives to beta-lactam agents for the treatment of community-acquired respiratory tract infections. During the last 10 years, the incidence of pneumococcal isolates with elevated macrolide minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values has also increased, yet the debate over the clinical meaning of these statistics persists. The youthful science of pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics provides a useful platform to determine which pneumococcal strains with elevated MIC values can be treated with contemporary dosing regimens and also facilitates the proper selection of antimicrobial breakpoints for all antimicrobial classes, including the newer macrolides.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Treatments in respiratory medicine\",\"volume\":\"4 Suppl 1 \",\"pages\":\"5-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Treatments in respiratory medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自20世纪60年代初以来,抗菌药物临床药敏试验程序的标准化和质量保证取得了相当大的进展。然而,关于临床实验室药敏试验结果的解释仍然存在争议。虽然有些人认为易感性断点应该只检测耐药机制,但其他人认为它们应该预测高概率的临床反应。这导致了临床医生之间的混淆,因为一段时间以来,解释性测试结果与临床治疗反应(通常是耐药病原体引起的感染的治愈)之间可能存在不一致。几乎在临床药敏试验程序标准化进程开始的同时,首次检测到耐青霉素肺炎链球菌分离株。在随后的几十年里,耐青霉素肺炎球菌成为一个更大的临床问题,导致大环内酯类药物成为治疗社区获得性呼吸道感染的β -内酰胺类药物的安全治疗替代品。在过去10年中,大环内酯最小抑制浓度(MIC)值升高的肺炎球菌分离株的发生率也有所增加,但关于这些统计数据的临床意义的争论仍然存在。年轻的药代动力学-药效学科学提供了一个有用的平台,可以确定MIC值升高的肺炎球菌菌株可以用现代给药方案治疗,也有助于正确选择所有抗菌药物类别的抗菌断点,包括较新的大环内酯类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Antimicrobial susceptibility breakpoints: PK-PD and susceptibility breakpoints.

Since the early 1960s, considerable advancements have been made to standardize and provide quality assurance for clinical susceptibility testing procedures of antimicrobial agents. Controversy, however, remains as to the interpretation of clinical laboratory susceptibility test results. While some feel susceptibility breakpoints should only detect resistance mechanisms, others believe they should predict a high probability of clinical response. This has resulted in confusion among clinicians, as it has been apparent for some time that there can be discordance between interpretive test results and clinical response to therapy (generally cures of infections caused by resistant pathogens). Nearly simultaneous with the beginning of the standardization process for clinical susceptibility testing procedures, the first penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates were detected. During the ensuing decades, penicillin-resistant pneumococci became a greater clinical concern, resulting in macrolides emerging as safe therapeutic alternatives to beta-lactam agents for the treatment of community-acquired respiratory tract infections. During the last 10 years, the incidence of pneumococcal isolates with elevated macrolide minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values has also increased, yet the debate over the clinical meaning of these statistics persists. The youthful science of pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics provides a useful platform to determine which pneumococcal strains with elevated MIC values can be treated with contemporary dosing regimens and also facilitates the proper selection of antimicrobial breakpoints for all antimicrobial classes, including the newer macrolides.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Nosocomial pneumonia : rationalizing the approach to empirical therapy. Managing asthma in expectant mothers. New strategies for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension in sickle cell disease : the rationale for arginine therapy. Antioxidant strategies in respiratory medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1