Loading…
Comparative activity of ceftobiprole against Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates from Europe and the Middle East: the CLASS study
to assess the in vitro activity of ceftobiprole and comparators against a recent collection of Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, in order to detect potential changes in susceptibility patterns, and to evaluate the Etest assay for ceftobiprole susceptibility testing. contemporary Gram-positi...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy 2011, Vol.66 (1), p.151-159 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-9806ba3be1bf5dfc54cb63902a53ad24912d7771bbfa9df735b80b3c7384646b3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-9806ba3be1bf5dfc54cb63902a53ad24912d7771bbfa9df735b80b3c7384646b3 |
container_end_page | 159 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 151 |
container_title | Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy |
container_volume | 66 |
creator | ROSSOLINI, Gian M DRYDEN, Matthew S KOZLOV, Roman S QUINTANA, Alvaro FLAMM, Robert K LÄUFFER, Jörg M LEE, Emma MORRISSEY, Ian |
description | to assess the in vitro activity of ceftobiprole and comparators against a recent collection of Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, in order to detect potential changes in susceptibility patterns, and to evaluate the Etest assay for ceftobiprole susceptibility testing.
contemporary Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates (excluding extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing isolates) from across Europe and the Middle East were collected, and their susceptibility to ceftobiprole, vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid, ceftazidime and cefepime was assessed using the Etest method. Quality testing [using Etest and broth microdilution (BMD)] was conducted at a central reference laboratory.
some 5041 Gram-positive and 4026 Gram-negative isolates were included. Against Gram-positive isolates overall, ceftobiprole had the lowest MIC50 (0.5 mg/L), compared with 1 mg/L for its comparators (vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid). Against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, all four agents had a similar MIC90 (2 mg/L), but ceftobiprole had a 4-fold better MIC90 (0.5 mg/L) against methicillin-susceptible strains. Only 38 Gram-positive isolates were confirmed as ceftobiprole resistant. Among Gram-negative strains, 86.9%, 91.7% and 95.2% were susceptible to ceftobiprole, ceftazidime and cefepime, respectively. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was less susceptible to all three antimicrobials than any other Gram-negative pathogen. There was generally good agreement between local Etest results and those obtained at the reference laboratory (for ceftobiprole: 86.8% with Gram-negatives; and 94.7% with Gram-positives), as well as between results obtained by BMD and Etest methods (for ceftobiprole: 98.2% with Gram-negatives; and 98.4% with Gram-positives).
ceftobiprole exhibits in vitro activity against a wide range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including multidrug-resistant strains. No changes in its known susceptibility profile were identified. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/jac/dkq397 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_872129640</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>822900966</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-9806ba3be1bf5dfc54cb63902a53ad24912d7771bbfa9df735b80b3c7384646b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0V1rFDEUBuAgFrvW3vgDZBBEKIzNxySZ9K4sa1tY8aL2eshnzTozmSYZYf-Av9vYWS1406sD5zy8cHgBeIvgJwQFOd9JfW5-PBDBX4AVahisMRToJVhBAmnNG0qOweuUdhBCRln7ChxjBCkinK7Ar3UYJhll9j9tJXUZPu-r4CptXQ7KTzH05XAv_ZhydRXlUE8h-YWPZtmM9n4J8Cn0MttUuRiGajPHMC0sf7fVF29MydrIlC8eF-vt5e1tlfJs9m_AkZN9sqeHeQLuPm--ra_r7derm_XlttYNQrkWLWRKEmWRctQ4TRutGBEQS0qkwY1A2HDOkVJOCuM4oaqFimhO2oY1TJET8HHJLX89zDblbvBJ276Xow1z6lqOERasgc9LjAWEgrEi3_8nd2GOY3njEWHKOCrobEE6hpSidd0U_SDjvkOw-9NiV1rslhYLfndInNVgzT_6t7YCPhyATFr2LspR-_TkSMtgixH5DZWcphQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>822925671</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative activity of ceftobiprole against Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates from Europe and the Middle East: the CLASS study</title><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><creator>ROSSOLINI, Gian M ; DRYDEN, Matthew S ; KOZLOV, Roman S ; QUINTANA, Alvaro ; FLAMM, Robert K ; LÄUFFER, Jörg M ; LEE, Emma ; MORRISSEY, Ian</creator><creatorcontrib>ROSSOLINI, Gian M ; DRYDEN, Matthew S ; KOZLOV, Roman S ; QUINTANA, Alvaro ; FLAMM, Robert K ; LÄUFFER, Jörg M ; LEE, Emma ; MORRISSEY, Ian ; on behalf of the CLASS study group</creatorcontrib><description>to assess the in vitro activity of ceftobiprole and comparators against a recent collection of Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, in order to detect potential changes in susceptibility patterns, and to evaluate the Etest assay for ceftobiprole susceptibility testing.
contemporary Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates (excluding extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing isolates) from across Europe and the Middle East were collected, and their susceptibility to ceftobiprole, vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid, ceftazidime and cefepime was assessed using the Etest method. Quality testing [using Etest and broth microdilution (BMD)] was conducted at a central reference laboratory.
some 5041 Gram-positive and 4026 Gram-negative isolates were included. Against Gram-positive isolates overall, ceftobiprole had the lowest MIC50 (0.5 mg/L), compared with 1 mg/L for its comparators (vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid). Against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, all four agents had a similar MIC90 (2 mg/L), but ceftobiprole had a 4-fold better MIC90 (0.5 mg/L) against methicillin-susceptible strains. Only 38 Gram-positive isolates were confirmed as ceftobiprole resistant. Among Gram-negative strains, 86.9%, 91.7% and 95.2% were susceptible to ceftobiprole, ceftazidime and cefepime, respectively. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was less susceptible to all three antimicrobials than any other Gram-negative pathogen. There was generally good agreement between local Etest results and those obtained at the reference laboratory (for ceftobiprole: 86.8% with Gram-negatives; and 94.7% with Gram-positives), as well as between results obtained by BMD and Etest methods (for ceftobiprole: 98.2% with Gram-negatives; and 98.4% with Gram-positives).
ceftobiprole exhibits in vitro activity against a wide range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including multidrug-resistant strains. No changes in its known susceptibility profile were identified.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0305-7453</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1460-2091</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkq397</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21051375</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JACHDX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology ; Bacteriology ; Cephalosporins - pharmacology ; Comparative studies ; Drug resistance ; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial ; Europe ; Gram-negative bacteria ; Gram-Negative Bacteria - drug effects ; Gram-Negative Bacteria - isolation & purification ; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections - microbiology ; Gram-positive bacteria ; Gram-Positive Bacteria - drug effects ; Gram-Positive Bacteria - isolation & purification ; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections - microbiology ; Humans ; Microbial Sensitivity Tests ; Middle East ; Pseudomonas aeruginosa ; Staphylococcus aureus ; Staphylococcus infections</subject><ispartof>Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2011, Vol.66 (1), p.151-159</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Oxford Publishing Limited(England) Jan 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-9806ba3be1bf5dfc54cb63902a53ad24912d7771bbfa9df735b80b3c7384646b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-9806ba3be1bf5dfc54cb63902a53ad24912d7771bbfa9df735b80b3c7384646b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=23860821$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21051375$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>ROSSOLINI, Gian M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DRYDEN, Matthew S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KOZLOV, Roman S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>QUINTANA, Alvaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FLAMM, Robert K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LÄUFFER, Jörg M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEE, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MORRISSEY, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>on behalf of the CLASS study group</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative activity of ceftobiprole against Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates from Europe and the Middle East: the CLASS study</title><title>Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy</title><addtitle>J Antimicrob Chemother</addtitle><description>to assess the in vitro activity of ceftobiprole and comparators against a recent collection of Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, in order to detect potential changes in susceptibility patterns, and to evaluate the Etest assay for ceftobiprole susceptibility testing.
contemporary Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates (excluding extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing isolates) from across Europe and the Middle East were collected, and their susceptibility to ceftobiprole, vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid, ceftazidime and cefepime was assessed using the Etest method. Quality testing [using Etest and broth microdilution (BMD)] was conducted at a central reference laboratory.
some 5041 Gram-positive and 4026 Gram-negative isolates were included. Against Gram-positive isolates overall, ceftobiprole had the lowest MIC50 (0.5 mg/L), compared with 1 mg/L for its comparators (vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid). Against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, all four agents had a similar MIC90 (2 mg/L), but ceftobiprole had a 4-fold better MIC90 (0.5 mg/L) against methicillin-susceptible strains. Only 38 Gram-positive isolates were confirmed as ceftobiprole resistant. Among Gram-negative strains, 86.9%, 91.7% and 95.2% were susceptible to ceftobiprole, ceftazidime and cefepime, respectively. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was less susceptible to all three antimicrobials than any other Gram-negative pathogen. There was generally good agreement between local Etest results and those obtained at the reference laboratory (for ceftobiprole: 86.8% with Gram-negatives; and 94.7% with Gram-positives), as well as between results obtained by BMD and Etest methods (for ceftobiprole: 98.2% with Gram-negatives; and 98.4% with Gram-positives).
ceftobiprole exhibits in vitro activity against a wide range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including multidrug-resistant strains. No changes in its known susceptibility profile were identified.</description><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology</subject><subject>Bacteriology</subject><subject>Cephalosporins - pharmacology</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Drug resistance</subject><subject>Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial</subject><subject>Europe</subject><subject>Gram-negative bacteria</subject><subject>Gram-Negative Bacteria - drug effects</subject><subject>Gram-Negative Bacteria - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Gram-positive bacteria</subject><subject>Gram-Positive Bacteria - drug effects</subject><subject>Gram-Positive Bacteria - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Microbial Sensitivity Tests</subject><subject>Middle East</subject><subject>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</subject><subject>Staphylococcus aureus</subject><subject>Staphylococcus infections</subject><issn>0305-7453</issn><issn>1460-2091</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqF0V1rFDEUBuAgFrvW3vgDZBBEKIzNxySZ9K4sa1tY8aL2eshnzTozmSYZYf-Av9vYWS1406sD5zy8cHgBeIvgJwQFOd9JfW5-PBDBX4AVahisMRToJVhBAmnNG0qOweuUdhBCRln7ChxjBCkinK7Ar3UYJhll9j9tJXUZPu-r4CptXQ7KTzH05XAv_ZhydRXlUE8h-YWPZtmM9n4J8Cn0MttUuRiGajPHMC0sf7fVF29MydrIlC8eF-vt5e1tlfJs9m_AkZN9sqeHeQLuPm--ra_r7derm_XlttYNQrkWLWRKEmWRctQ4TRutGBEQS0qkwY1A2HDOkVJOCuM4oaqFimhO2oY1TJET8HHJLX89zDblbvBJ276Xow1z6lqOERasgc9LjAWEgrEi3_8nd2GOY3njEWHKOCrobEE6hpSidd0U_SDjvkOw-9NiV1rslhYLfndInNVgzT_6t7YCPhyATFr2LspR-_TkSMtgixH5DZWcphQ</recordid><startdate>2011</startdate><enddate>2011</enddate><creator>ROSSOLINI, Gian M</creator><creator>DRYDEN, Matthew S</creator><creator>KOZLOV, Roman S</creator><creator>QUINTANA, Alvaro</creator><creator>FLAMM, Robert K</creator><creator>LÄUFFER, Jörg M</creator><creator>LEE, Emma</creator><creator>MORRISSEY, Ian</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Oxford Publishing Limited (England)</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2011</creationdate><title>Comparative activity of ceftobiprole against Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates from Europe and the Middle East: the CLASS study</title><author>ROSSOLINI, Gian M ; DRYDEN, Matthew S ; KOZLOV, Roman S ; QUINTANA, Alvaro ; FLAMM, Robert K ; LÄUFFER, Jörg M ; LEE, Emma ; MORRISSEY, Ian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-9806ba3be1bf5dfc54cb63902a53ad24912d7771bbfa9df735b80b3c7384646b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology</topic><topic>Bacteriology</topic><topic>Cephalosporins - pharmacology</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Drug resistance</topic><topic>Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial</topic><topic>Europe</topic><topic>Gram-negative bacteria</topic><topic>Gram-Negative Bacteria - drug effects</topic><topic>Gram-Negative Bacteria - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Gram-positive bacteria</topic><topic>Gram-Positive Bacteria - drug effects</topic><topic>Gram-Positive Bacteria - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Microbial Sensitivity Tests</topic><topic>Middle East</topic><topic>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</topic><topic>Staphylococcus aureus</topic><topic>Staphylococcus infections</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>ROSSOLINI, Gian M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DRYDEN, Matthew S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KOZLOV, Roman S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>QUINTANA, Alvaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FLAMM, Robert K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LÄUFFER, Jörg M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEE, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MORRISSEY, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>on behalf of the CLASS study group</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>ROSSOLINI, Gian M</au><au>DRYDEN, Matthew S</au><au>KOZLOV, Roman S</au><au>QUINTANA, Alvaro</au><au>FLAMM, Robert K</au><au>LÄUFFER, Jörg M</au><au>LEE, Emma</au><au>MORRISSEY, Ian</au><aucorp>on behalf of the CLASS study group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative activity of ceftobiprole against Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates from Europe and the Middle East: the CLASS study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy</jtitle><addtitle>J Antimicrob Chemother</addtitle><date>2011</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>66</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>151</spage><epage>159</epage><pages>151-159</pages><issn>0305-7453</issn><eissn>1460-2091</eissn><coden>JACHDX</coden><abstract>to assess the in vitro activity of ceftobiprole and comparators against a recent collection of Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, in order to detect potential changes in susceptibility patterns, and to evaluate the Etest assay for ceftobiprole susceptibility testing.
contemporary Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates (excluding extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing isolates) from across Europe and the Middle East were collected, and their susceptibility to ceftobiprole, vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid, ceftazidime and cefepime was assessed using the Etest method. Quality testing [using Etest and broth microdilution (BMD)] was conducted at a central reference laboratory.
some 5041 Gram-positive and 4026 Gram-negative isolates were included. Against Gram-positive isolates overall, ceftobiprole had the lowest MIC50 (0.5 mg/L), compared with 1 mg/L for its comparators (vancomycin, teicoplanin and linezolid). Against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, all four agents had a similar MIC90 (2 mg/L), but ceftobiprole had a 4-fold better MIC90 (0.5 mg/L) against methicillin-susceptible strains. Only 38 Gram-positive isolates were confirmed as ceftobiprole resistant. Among Gram-negative strains, 86.9%, 91.7% and 95.2% were susceptible to ceftobiprole, ceftazidime and cefepime, respectively. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was less susceptible to all three antimicrobials than any other Gram-negative pathogen. There was generally good agreement between local Etest results and those obtained at the reference laboratory (for ceftobiprole: 86.8% with Gram-negatives; and 94.7% with Gram-positives), as well as between results obtained by BMD and Etest methods (for ceftobiprole: 98.2% with Gram-negatives; and 98.4% with Gram-positives).
ceftobiprole exhibits in vitro activity against a wide range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including multidrug-resistant strains. No changes in its known susceptibility profile were identified.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>21051375</pmid><doi>10.1093/jac/dkq397</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0305-7453 |
ispartof | Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2011, Vol.66 (1), p.151-159 |
issn | 0305-7453 1460-2091 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_872129640 |
source | Oxford Journals Online |
subjects | Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology Bacteriology Cephalosporins - pharmacology Comparative studies Drug resistance Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial Europe Gram-negative bacteria Gram-Negative Bacteria - drug effects Gram-Negative Bacteria - isolation & purification Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections - microbiology Gram-positive bacteria Gram-Positive Bacteria - drug effects Gram-Positive Bacteria - isolation & purification Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections - microbiology Humans Microbial Sensitivity Tests Middle East Pseudomonas aeruginosa Staphylococcus aureus Staphylococcus infections |
title | Comparative activity of ceftobiprole against Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates from Europe and the Middle East: the CLASS study |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T19%3A41%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20activity%20of%20ceftobiprole%20against%20Gram-positive%20and%20Gram-negative%20isolates%20from%20Europe%20and%20the%20Middle%20East:%20the%20CLASS%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20antimicrobial%20chemotherapy&rft.au=ROSSOLINI,%20Gian%20M&rft.aucorp=on%20behalf%20of%20the%20CLASS%20study%20group&rft.date=2011&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=151&rft.epage=159&rft.pages=151-159&rft.issn=0305-7453&rft.eissn=1460-2091&rft.coden=JACHDX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jac/dkq397&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E822900966%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-9806ba3be1bf5dfc54cb63902a53ad24912d7771bbfa9df735b80b3c7384646b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=822925671&rft_id=info:pmid/21051375&rfr_iscdi=true |