利奈唑胺、替考拉宁和万古霉素等抗菌药物对常见需氧革兰阳性球菌的体外抗菌活性

目的评价利奈唑胺、替考拉宁和万古霉素等抗菌药物的体外抗菌活性。方法采用琼脂稀释法对临床收集的132株革兰阳性球菌进行抗菌活性测定,记录其各自的MIC并进行比较。结果利奈唑胺、替考拉宁及万古霉素3药对革兰阳性球菌均有较大抗菌活性,敏感率均为100%,包括其中的耐甲氧西林葡萄球菌和青霉素中介肺炎链球菌均有良好抗菌作用。3药在部分革兰阳性球菌的抗菌作用中与利福平相仿,但比氨基糖苷类抗生素和氟喹诺酮类抗菌药强。在对甲氧西林敏感金葡萄的抗菌活性中,替考拉宁的MIC90均为利奈唑胺和万古霉素的4倍;在对甲氧西林敏感凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌的抗菌活性中,替考拉宁的MIC90分别均为利奈唑胺和万古霉素的8倍;而在青霉素敏感和中介肺炎链球菌的抗菌活性中,替考拉宁的MIC90为利奈唑胺的1/16,为万古霉素的1/8;在肠球菌属的抗菌活性中,万古霉素的MIC90分别为利奈唑胺的2倍,是替考拉宁的4倍和8倍。结论利奈唑胺、替考拉宁以及万古霉素等三药对革兰阳性球菌有较大的抗菌作用,对部分革兰阳性菌的抗菌作用与利福平相仿,但比其他如氨基糖苷类抗生素和氟诺酮类抗菌药更优,是临床革兰阳性球菌严重感染的有效药物。     

2743株革兰阳性菌的临床分离及耐药性分析

目的探讨我院2013年革兰阳性菌的临床分离及耐药情况。方法常规方法培养、分离革兰阳性菌,用纸片扩散法、Etest法或全自动细菌分析仪测定细菌对不同抗菌药物的敏感性,采用2013年版CLSI标准判读结果。结果共分离2 743株革兰阳性菌,葡萄球菌属占43.3%,肠球菌属占35.6%,链球菌属占15.2%。金黄色葡萄球菌、表皮葡萄球菌和溶血葡萄球菌对苯唑西林耐药率分别为46.9%,81.4%和94.2%,未发现万古霉素和利奈唑胺耐药葡萄球菌。屎肠球菌对利奈唑胺和万古霉素耐药率分别为0.4%和0.5%,粪肠球菌对利奈唑胺耐药率为0.3%,未发现万古霉素耐药粪肠球菌。结论万古霉素、利奈唑胺和替考拉宁对葡萄球菌、肠球菌和链球菌仍有很高抗菌活性,甲氧西林耐药葡萄球菌比率较高。     

Mohnarin 2008年度报告:葡萄球菌和肠球菌耐药监测

目的 总结我国89家医院2008年度临床分离葡萄球菌和肠球菌的耐药状况.方法 常规方法培养分离临床感染标本中的葡萄球菌和肠球菌,应用半自动或全自动细菌鉴定分析仪鉴定到种,药敏试验按临床和实验室标准化委员会(CLSI)规定的标准进行.监测数据按卫生部全国细菌耐药监测(Mohnarin)中心设计方案上报,用WHONET5.4软件统计分析.结果 从89家医院共分离获得葡萄球菌32378株,肠球菌12127株,分别占革兰阳性菌的63.6%和23.8%.耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)和耐甲氧西林凝崮酶阴性葡萄球菌(MRCNS)的发生率分别为67.6%、79.9%;ICU病区MRSA发生率为51.2%;不同地区MRSA发生率在52.3%～76.9%之间;不同标本MRSA分离率分别为:痰液标本48.7%,血液标本42.0%,分泌物标本18.8%.MRSA对米诺环素、氯霉素、呋喃妥因和替考拉宁的敏感率分别为84.6%、86.5%、93.4%和97.7%;对氟喹诺酮类、氨基糖甙类、克林霉素和利福平的敏感率为4.9%～48.7%;未发现对万古霉素和利奈唑胺耐药的葡萄球菌.肠球菌对利奈唑胺均敏感;共发现205株耐万古霉素肠球菌(VRE),粪肠球菌和屎肠球菌对万古霉素的耐药率分别为1.3%和1.4%.结论 我国VRE分离率虽然较低,但临床应严格监控其耐药性的扩散;利奈唑胺、万古霉素和替考拉宁对葡萄球菌和肠球菌体外抗菌活性均较好,但临床应根据患者自身具体的感染情况采取个体优化治疗方案;耐甲氧西林葡萄球菌分离率仍较高,临床应采取更加有效的防止交叉感染和消毒灭菌措施.     

利奈唑胺对万古霉素敏感及耐药屎肠球菌的抗菌活性

目的 评价利奈唑胺对临床分离万古霉素敏感及耐药屎肠球菌的体外抗菌活性.方法 多重PCR法鉴定屎肠球菌万古霉素耐药基因类型,平皿二倍稀释法测定利奈唑胺等11种抗菌药物MIC值.结果 75株临床分离万古霉素耐药屎肠球菌均携带vanA基因.万古霉素敏感及耐药屎肠球菌对利奈唑胺均敏感,MIC范围1～2mg/L.与红霉素、氨苄西林、左氧氟沙星和利福平相比,万古霉素敏感及耐药屎肠球菌的耐药率均在80%以上.万古霉素敏感屎肠球菌对高浓度庆大霉素、高浓度链霉素、四环素和氯霉素的耐药率分别为80.2%、13.9%、38.6%和37.6%;万古霉素耐药屎肠球菌对上述4种药物的耐药率分别为64.5%、8.0%、18.5%和5.3%.结论 利奈唑胺对我国临床分离万古霉素敏感和耐药屎肠球菌均具有很好的体外抗菌活性.     

中国西部地区革兰阳性菌的耐药及分布特点

目的 了解中国西部地区临床分离革兰阳性菌对常用抗菌药物的敏感性和耐药性。方法 对中国西部地区10所医 院临床分离的革兰阳性菌采用纸片扩散法或自动化仪器法进行抗菌药物敏感性试验。参照2017年CLSI文件标准判读结果。结果 共收集2016年、2017年上述医院临床分离革兰阳性菌16558株和19263株,阳性菌中分离前3位的依次为金黄色葡萄球菌、屎肠 球菌和肺炎链球菌。MRSA 2016年和2017年的分离率分别为34.9%和32.8%。MRSA对绝大多数测试药物的耐药率均显著高于 MSSA。未发现万古霉素、利奈唑胺和替考拉宁耐药菌株。肠球菌属中粪肠球菌对多数测试抗菌药物的耐药率均显著低于屎肠 球菌,两者中均有少数万古霉素耐药株。A组、B组除对红霉素和克林霉素有较高的耐药率外,B组链球菌对左氧氟沙星也有较 高的耐药率,对其它测试抗菌药物有较好的敏感性。肺炎链球菌非脑膜炎株红霉素、克林霉素和复方磺胺甲噁唑耐药率较高。 未发现万古霉素和利奈唑胺耐药株。结论 MRSA检出率有下降的趋势;耐万古霉素肠球菌分离率处于较低水平;万古霉素、 利奈唑胺、替考拉宁对革兰阳性球菌有很好的抗菌活性。不同地区革兰阳性菌耐药性有所差异,应重视耐药性监测并加强抗菌 药物合理应用。     

卫生部全国细菌耐药监测网2011年革兰阳性菌耐药监测

目的 总结我国2011年临床分离革兰阳性菌耐药状况.方法 常规方法培养分离革兰阳性菌,用纸片法、微量稀释法或E-test法测定细菌药物敏感性,用CLSI标准判读,用WHONET 5.6软件对进行分析.结果 共分离103720株革兰阳性菌,葡萄球菌属占60506株(58.3％),其次为肠球菌属24897株(24.0％)和链球菌属18107株(17.5％).金黄色葡萄球菌、表皮葡萄球菌和溶血葡萄球菌对头孢西丁耐药率分别为55.5％,74.7％和86.3％.未发现万古霉素和利奈唑胺耐药葡萄球菌.屎肠球菌和粪肠球菌对万古霉素的耐药率分别为4.9％和1.1％.未发现利奈唑胺耐药肠球菌.结论利奈唑胺、万古霉素和替考拉宁对葡萄球菌、肠球菌仍有很高抗菌活性,但葡萄球菌中甲氧西林耐药率较高,万古霉素耐药肠球菌分离率仍很低.     

教学医院住院患者2007-2011年革兰阳性菌耐药监测

目的监测2007-2011年北京大学第一医院临床分离革兰阳性菌株对常用抗菌药物的敏感性。方法收集临床分离革兰阳性菌株,细菌敏感性测定采用标准纸片扩散法或自动化临床微生物方法,用WHONET5.6软件进行数据分析。结果 5年间共获得临床分离革兰阳性菌5715株,最常见的5种细菌分别为金黄色葡萄球菌(26.5%)、表皮葡萄球菌(18.5%)、粪肠球菌(11.8%)、屎肠球菌(10.8%)和溶血葡萄球菌(10.1%)。耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)和耐甲氧西林表皮葡萄球菌(MRSE)平均检出率分别为52.4%,83.6%。未发现万古霉素耐药葡萄球菌。粪肠球菌和屎肠球菌对万古霉素平均耐药率分别为0.3%,16.8%,其中屎肠球菌对万古霉素耐药率由2007年的7.8%上升到2011年的33.8%。未发现利奈唑胺耐药肠球菌。结论 MRSA和MRSE检出率无明显变化;利奈唑胺和万古霉素对葡萄球菌、肠球菌仍有较高抗菌活性,但屎肠球菌对万古霉素耐药率明显上升。     

2010年四川省人民医院细菌耐药性监测

目的了解2010年我院临床分离病原菌分布及其对常用抗菌药物的耐药性。方法细菌药物敏感试验测定采用纸片扩散法(K-B法),WHONET 5.4软件及SPSS13.0软件进行数据统计分析。结果 2010年我院共分离出病原菌7557株,其中,革兰阳性菌1888株,占24.98%,革兰阴性菌5593株,占74.01%;金黄色葡萄球菌中,耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)检出率占54.3%,未发现对万古霉素、替考拉宁和利奈唑胺的耐药株。肠球菌属中,屎肠球菌和粪肠球菌均已出现少数对万古霉素、替考拉宁和利奈唑胺耐药的菌株。肠杆菌科细菌中大肠埃希菌和肺炎克雷伯菌的ESBLs检出率分别为69%和20.9%;铜绿假单胞菌和鲍曼不动杆菌对亚胺培南的的耐药率分别达43.9%和77.2%。结论细菌耐药性呈增长趋势,需加强耐药性监测,并采取有效控制措施。     

Mohnarin 2009年度报告:男性尿标本来源细菌耐药监测

目的 总结2009年我国临床分离革兰阳性菌耐药状况.方法 用常规方法,培养分离革兰阳性菌;用纸片法、微量稀释法或E-test法,测定细菌药物敏感性;用WHONET5.5软件,对卫生部全国细菌耐药性监测网(Mohnarin)所属114家医院从2009年临床分离革兰阳性菌的药物敏感性进行分析.结果 临床医院共分离63085株革兰阳性菌.其中,葡萄球菌属占40593株(64.3%),其次为肠球菌属(23.4%)和链球菌属(9.7%).金黄色葡萄球菌、表皮葡萄球菌和溶血葡萄球菌中,甲氧西林耐药率分别为58.5%,75.8%和81.5%.未发现万古霉素和利奈唑胺耐药葡萄球菌.屎肠球菌和粪肠球菌对万古霉素的耐药率分别为4.2%和1.2%;未发现奈唑胺耐药肠球菌.结论 利奈唑胺、万古霉素和替考拉宁对葡萄球菌、肠球菌仍有很高抗菌活性;但葡萄球菌中,甲氧西林耐药率较高;万古霉素耐药肠球菌(VRE)分离率仍很低,但较前有所增加.     

Mohnarin2009年度报告:革兰阳性菌耐药监测

目的 总结2009年我国临床分离革兰阳性菌耐药状况.方法 用常规方法,培养分离革兰阳性菌;用纸片法、微量稀释法或E-test法,测定细菌药物敏感性;用WHONET5.5软件,对卫生部全国细菌耐药性监测网(Mohnarin)所属114家医院从2009年临床分离革兰阳性菌的药物敏感性进行分析.结果 临床医院共分离63085株革兰阳性菌.其中,葡萄球菌属占40593株(64.3%),其次为肠球菌属(23.4%)和链球菌属(9.7%).金黄色葡萄球菌、表皮葡萄球菌和溶血葡萄球菌中,甲氧西林耐药率分别为58.5%,75.8%和81.5%.未发现万古霉素和利奈唑胺耐药葡萄球菌.屎肠球菌和粪肠球菌对万古霉素的耐药率分别为4.2%和1.2%;未发现奈唑胺耐药肠球菌.结论 利奈唑胺、万古霉素和替考拉宁对葡萄球菌、肠球菌仍有很高抗菌活性;但葡萄球菌中,甲氧西林耐药率较高;万古霉素耐药肠球菌(VRE)分离率仍很低,但较前有所增加.     

Linezolid: a review of its use in the management of serious gram-positive infections

Linezolid is the first of a new class of antibacterial drugs, the oxazolidinones. It has inhibitory activity against a broad range of gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), glycopeptide-intermediate S. aureus (GISA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. The drug also shows activity against certain anaerobes, including Clostridium perfringens, C. difficile, Peptostreptococcus spp. and Bacteroidesfragilis. In controlled phase III studies, linezolid was as effective as vancomycin in the treatment of patients with infections caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococci and also demonstrated efficacy against infections caused by VRE. Further phase III studies have demonstrated that linezolid is an effective treatment for patients with nosocomial pneumonia, for hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia, and for patients with complicated skin or soft tissue infections (SSTIs). In these studies, linezolid was as effective as established treatments, including third-generation cephalosporins in patients with pneumonia, and oxacillin in patients with complicated SSTIs. Oral linezolid 400 or 600mg twice daily was as effective as clarithromycin 250mg twice daily or cefpodoxime proxetil 200mg twice daily in the treatment of patients with uncomplicated SSTIs or community-acquired pneumonia. Linezolid is a generally well tolerated drug. The most frequently reported adverse events in linezolid recipients were diarrhoea, headache, nausea and vomiting. Thrombocytopenia was also documented in a small proportion (about 2%) of patients treated with the drug. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid has good activity against gram-positive bacteria, particularly multidrug resistant strains of S. aureus (including GISA), Enterococcus faecium and E. faecalis (including VRE). In controlled clinical trials, linezolid was as effective as vancomycin in eradicating infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. and has demonstrated efficacy against infections caused by VRE. As the level of resistance to vancomycin increases among S. aureus and enterococci, linezolid is poised to play an important role in the management of serious gram-positive infections.     

A comparison of available and investigational antibiotics for complicated skin infections and treatment-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and enterococcus

This article compares vancomycin, teicoplanin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, linezolid, daptomycin, tigecyline, dalbavancin, telavancin, ceftobiprole, oritavancin, and ramoplanin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), enterococcus, and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus. Vancomycin, a glycopeptide antibiotic, is administered intravenously, and is the mainstay of treatment for MRSA and cSSSI. While not available in the U.S., teicoplanin, another glycopeptide antibiotic, can be administered intramuscularly and has simpler dosing and monitoring requirements than vancomycin. Quinupristin/dalfopristin treats vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREF) infections but inhibits cytochrome P450 A3P4, and has only modest activity against MRSA pneumonia. Daptomycin effectively treats cSSSI but not pneumonia caused by MRSA, and is effective against all strains of Staphylococcus. Linezolid, available orally and intravenously, is approved to treat community-acquired and nosocomial pneumonia, cSSSI, and infections caused by MRSA and vancomycin-resistant enterococci including infections with concurrent bacteraemia and VREE Tigecycline, a glycylcycline derived from minocycline, has been approved by the FDA to treat cSSSI and complicated intraabdominal infections, and might be effective against Acinetobacter baumannii; its primary side effect is digestive upset. Dalbavancin, effective against MRSA and administered intravenously once weekly, possesses coverage similar to vancomycin. Telavancin deploys multiple mechanisms of action and is effective against MRSA and Gram-positive bacteria resistant to vancomycin. Ceftobiprole, a cephalosporin effective against MRSA, has few side effects. Oritavancin demonstrates similar activity to vancomycin but possesses extended activity against vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus and enterococci. Ramoplanin, a macrocyclic depsipeptide, is unstable in the bloodstream but can be taken orally to treat Clostridium difficile colitis.     

万古霉素和利奈唑胺治疗革兰阳性球菌感染给药方案优化

摘要： 目的 评价并优化万古霉素和利奈唑胺治疗不同革兰阳性球菌感染的给药方案。方法 根据抗菌药物的药动学/药效学理论, 将万古霉素和利奈唑胺的药代动力学参数, 结合这 2 种药物对表皮葡萄球菌、 金黄色葡萄球菌、 粪肠球菌和屎肠球菌的体外药效学数据进行蒙特卡洛模拟, 通过比较 2 种药物不同给药方案对 4 种革兰阳性球菌的累积反应分数 （CFR） 来评价并优化给药方案。结果 当患者感染表皮葡萄球菌时, 推荐使用万古霉素 3 500 mg/d 的给药方案; 当患者感染金黄色葡萄球菌时, 推荐使用万古霉素 2 500 mg/d 的方案; 当患者感染粪肠球菌时, 推荐使用万古霉素 3 000 mg/d 或利奈唑胺 400 mg/次, 每日 2 次的方案; 当患者感染屎肠球菌时, 推荐使用万古霉素 2 500 mg/d 或利奈唑胺 400 mg/次, 每日 2 次的方案。结论 在应用万古霉素和利奈唑胺治疗革兰阳性球菌感染时,应根据感染菌种类选择不同的给药方案。     

烧伤患者创面细菌分布特点及耐药性分析

目的了解烧伤患者创面细菌的分布特点及其耐药情况。方法回顾性分析2012年1—12月昆明医科大学第二附属医院烧伤科患者创面分泌物标本,分析检出菌株的分布特点及耐药情况。结果检出率较高的前10种细菌革兰阴性菌为铜绿假单胞菌、鲍曼不动杆菌、大肠埃希菌、肺炎克雷伯菌、阴沟肠杆菌、奇异变形杆菌,革兰阳性菌为金黄色葡萄球菌、表皮葡萄球菌、粪肠球菌、屎肠球菌,占总检出菌的86.63%,革兰阴性菌数量明显多于革兰阳性菌。其中耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌对大多数抗菌药物的耐药率达90%以上。结论烧伤病区创面细菌感染及耐药问题较为严重,需严格实施消毒隔离措施,加强抗菌药物的合理使用。     

Linezolid: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in serious Gram-positive infections

Linezolid (Zyvox), the first available oxazolidinone antibacterial agent, has good activity against Gram-positive pathogens, including multidrug-resistant organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Randomised multicentre trials in patients with various types of serious Gram-positive infections showed that clinical cure rates with linezolid were similar to those with vancomycin or teicoplanin. In some subgroup analyses, which must be interpreted with a degree of caution, clinical advantages were noted for linezolid (e.g. versus vancomycin in confirmed MRSA nosocomial pneumonia and MRSA-complicated skin and soft tissue infections). Although generally well tolerated, gastrointestinal adverse effects are relatively common with linezolid and it has been associated with thrombocytopenia and myelosuppression. The oral bioavailability of linezolid is approximately 100%, thus allowing sequential intravenous-to-oral administration without changing the drug or dosage regimen. Healthcare resource use data from various countries indicate that this practical advantage translates into at least a trend towards reduced length of hospital stay compared with vancomycin, which may offset its several-fold higher acquisition cost. Modelled analyses from the US, despite some limitations, indicate that, compared with vancomycin, linezolid is associated with lower total hospitalisation costs for the treatment of patients with cellulitis and has a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately US30,000 dollars per QALY gained (2001 value) for patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Broadly similar results have also been reported in modelled analyses from other countries. In conclusion, for patients with serious Gram-positive infections, including those caused by suspected or proven multidrug-resistant pathogens such as MRSA, linezolid is an effective and generally well tolerated therapeutic option. Linezolid is currently the only antibacterial agent with good activity against MRSA that can be administered orally (as well as intravenously). It may be particularly useful as an alternative to vancomycin in patients who have impaired renal function, poor or no intravenous access, require outpatient therapy, or who have been unable to tolerate glycopeptides. Healthcare resource use studies and pharmacoeconomic analyses generally support the use of linezolid in some subgroups of patients, although results should be interpreted with due consideration of the study limitations.     

Linezolid

Linezolid is an oxazolidinone antibacterial agent that acts by inhibiting the initiation of bacterial protein synthesis. Cross-resistance between linezolid and other inhibitors of protein synthesis has not been demonstrated. Linezolid has a wide spectrum of activity against gram-positive organisms including methicillin-resistant staphylococci, penicillin-resistant pneumococci and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis and E. faecium. Anerobes such as Clostridium spp., Peptostreptococcus spp. and Prevotella spp. are also susceptible to linezolid. Linezolid is bacteriostatic against most susceptible organisms but displays bactericidal activity against some strains of pneumococci, Bacteroides fragilis and C. perfringens. In clinical trials involving hospitalised patients with skin/soft tissue infections (predominantly S. aureus), intravenous/oral linezolid (up to 1250 mg mg/day) produced clinical success in >83% of individuals. In patients with community-acquired pneumonia, success rates were >94%. Preliminary clinical data also indicate that twice daily intravenous/oral linezolid 600 mg is as effective as intravenous vancomycin 1 g in the treatment of patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia and in those with infections caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Moreover, linezolid 600 mg twice daily produced >85% clinical/microbiological cure in vancomycin-resistant enterococcal infections. Linezolid is generally well tolerated and gastrointestinal disturbances are the most commonly occurring adverse events. No clinical evidence of adverse reactions as a result of monoamine oxidase inhibition has been reported.     

莫西沙星对224株肠球菌的体外抗菌活性研究

目的观察莫西沙星对224株肠球菌的体外抗菌活性。方法采用二倍琼脂稀释法对224株肠球菌进行体外抗菌实验．并与意大利Aventis公司生产的替考拉宁和Lilly公司生产的万古霉素进行抗菌效果对比。结果莫西沙星的抗菌效果较好，对169株粪肠球菌和51株屎肠球菌的MIC90均为4mg／L，替考拉宁和万古霉素对169株粪肠球菌的MIC90分别为1、2mg／L；对51株屎肠球菌的MIC90分别为0．5和2mg／L。结论莫西沙星对224株肠球菌的抗菌效果较好，肠球菌对莫西沙星的敏感率均为76．34％。莫西沙星的抗菌效果低于替考拉宁和万古霉素。     

2016年福建省晋江市医院细菌耐药性监测

目的 了解福建省晋江市医院2016年临床分离菌对常用抗菌药物的敏感性和耐药性。方法 收集本院2016年1-12月的临床分离菌株,采用自动化仪器法或纸片扩散法(K-B法)进行细菌药物敏感性试验,按美国临床实验室标准化研究协会(CLSI)2016年版标准判断结果,WHONET 5.6软件统计分析。结果 共分离临床菌1,744株,其中革兰阳性菌590株,占33.8%,革兰阴性菌1,154株,占66.2%。金黄色葡萄球菌和凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌中甲氧西林耐药株(MRSA和MRCNS)检出率分别为29.6%和72.9%,MRSA和MRCNS对常用抗菌药物的耐药率均显著高于甲氧西林敏感株(MSSA和MSCNS),未发现替考拉宁、万古霉素和利奈唑胺耐药株。肠球菌属中粪肠球菌对多数测试抗菌药物(利奈唑胺除外)的耐药率均显著低于屎肠球菌,发现利奈唑胺耐药粪肠球菌2株,未发现替考拉宁和万古霉素耐药的粪肠球菌和屎肠球菌。肺炎链球菌非脑膜炎分离株对青霉素均高度敏感。大肠埃希菌、克雷伯菌属(肺炎克雷伯菌和产酸克雷伯菌)、奇异变形菌中ESBLs检出率分别为50.4%、22.5%和16.7%,肠杆菌科细菌对碳青霉烯类抗生素高度敏感,但有2.8%的肺炎克雷伯菌对碳青霉烯类耐药。铜绿假单胞菌对亚胺培南和美罗培南的耐药率分别为29.7%和21.2%。不动杆菌属(鲍曼不动杆菌占94.2%)对亚胺培南和美罗培南的耐药率分别为60.5%和62.9%。流感嗜血菌和卡他莫拉菌β-内酰胺酶产酶率分别为46.9%和99.3%。结论 县级医院临床分离菌的构成和耐药性均有别于大型综合性医院。