English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Tedizolid and linezolidin vitro activities against 3,032 Gram-positive pathogens collected in Asia-Pacific, Eastern European, and Latin American medical centers during 2014 were assessed. The isolates were tested for susceptibility by the current reference broth microdilution methods. Due to concern over the effect of MIC endpoint criteria on the results of testing the oxazolidinones tedizolid and linezolid, MIC endpoint values were read by two methods: (i) reading the MIC at the first well where the trailing began without regard for pinpoint trailing, according to CLSI M07-A10 and M100-S26 document instructions for reading linezolid (i.e., 80% inhibition of growth; these reads were designated tedizolid 80 and linezolid 80), and (ii) at 100% inhibition of growth (designated tedizolid 100 and linezolid 100). AllStaphylococcus aureus ,Streptococcus pyogenes ,Streptococcus agalactiae ,Streptococcus anginosus group, andEnterococcus faecalis isolates were inhibited at tedizolid 80 and 100 MIC values of 0.25 and 0.5, 0.25 and 0.25, 0.25 and 0.5, 0.12 and 0.25, and 0.5 and 1 μg/ml, respectively. Generally, MIC50 and MIC90 results for tedizolid 80 and linezolid 80 were one doubling dilution lower than those read at 100% inhibition. Tedizolid was 4- to 8-fold more potent than linezolid against all the isolates tested regardless of the MIC endpoint criterion used. Despite the differences in potency, &gt;99.9% of isolates tested in this survey were susceptible to both linezolid and tedizolid using CLSI and EUCAST interpretive criteria. In conclusion, tedizolid demonstrated greaterin vitro potency than linezolid against Gram-positive pathogens isolated from patients in medical centers across the Asia-Pacific region, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.

antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy

Activities of Tedizolid and Linezolid Determined by the Reference Broth Microdilution Method against 3,032 Gram-Positive Bacterial Isolates Collected in Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Latin American Countries in 2014