Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 14, Number 5—May 2008
Letter

Alternatives to Ciprofloxacin Use for Enteric Fever, United Kingdom

E. John Threlfall*Comments to Author , Elizabeth de Pinna*, Martin Day*, Joanne Lawrence*, and Jane Jones*
Author affiliations: *Health Protection Agency, London, UK;

Main Article

Table

Incidence of resistance/decreased susceptibility to key antimicrobial agents in isolates of Salmonella enterica serovars Typhi and Paratyphi A, United Kingdom, 2001–2006*

Year No. studied % S. Typhi resistant to
 No. studied % S. Paratyphi A resistant to
C A Tm CpL CpH C A Tm CpL CpH
2001 170 24 23 23 35 0 232 28 27 27 23 2
2002 150 18 17 17 35 1 149 10 9 10 39 3
2003 218 20 20 21 43 1 177 17 18 17 65 12
2004 215 23 23 24 47 2 221 5 5 5 70 14
2005 222 29 29 29 62 2 217 7 7 7 60 12
2006 240 23 24 24 68 2 278 2 3 2 64 9

*C, chloramphenicol; A, ampicillin, Tm, trimethoprim, CpL, ciprofloxacin MIC 0.25–1.0 mg/L; CpH, ciprofloxacin MIC >1.0 mg/L. No isolates exhibited resistance to ceftriaxone or cefotaxime; of 50 S. Typhi and 40 S. Paratyphi A isolated in 2005 and 2006, the MIC to azithromycin by E test (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) was not greater than 8 mg/L for S. Typhi and 12 mg/L for S. Paratyphi A, which corresponds to those of drug-sensitive controls of the respective serotypes.

Main Article

Page created: July 08, 2010
Page updated: July 08, 2010
Page reviewed: July 08, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external