This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, R. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, R. N.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, October 2001, p. 3810-3811, Vol. 39, No. 10
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.10.3810-3811.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Prediction of Enterococcal Imipenem Susceptibility Using Ampicillin or Penicillin MICs: More Evidence for a Class Concept


    LETTER

Recently Weinstein (12) presented evidence that the susceptibility of enterococci to the carbapenem imipenem could be predicted using the MICs of either ampicillin or penicillin. The current susceptibility testing interpretive tables (9, 10) of the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) do not list imipenem among the agents (amoxicillin with or without clavulanic acid, ampicillin or sulbactam, and piperacillin with or without tazobactam) whose activities can be determined from ampicillin or penicillin test results. The data presented from bloodstream infection isolates of Enterococcus faecalis (201 strains, 24 of which were vancomycin resistant) and Enterococcus faecium (24 strains, 19 of which were vancomycin resistant) clearly demonstrated near-complete susceptibility categorical agreement (99.1%) between ampicillin or penicillin MICs and the imipenem MIC using a concentration of <= 4 µg/ml as the susceptibility breakpoint (12). In this short report, expanded data from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1997-2000) were used to support the information initially derived from a single medical center in New Jersey.


View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 1.   Scattergram comparing penicillin and imipenem MICs determined during testing of 6,538 strains of enterococci (SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program [1997-2000]).

A total of 6,538 enterococci were tested by reference broth microdilution methods (10) at SENTRY monitoring centers in Europe, the Americas (Iowa City, Iowa), and Australia. The MICs of ampicillin and penicillin were compared to those of imipenem by scattergram and analysis of regression statistics. Species identifications were made at the SENTRY participant sites. The species distribution has been reported earlier (8), indexed by geographic region, but overall the distribution was dominated by E. faecalis isolates (64.0%), E. faecium isolates (17.1%), and isolates not identified to the species level (16.1%). The remaining 2.8% of enterococci in this collection included such species as E. avium, E. casseliflavus, E. gallinarum, and E. raffinosus.

Figure 1 shows the scattergram comparing penicillin and imipenem MICs. The correlation coefficient (r) was 0.87 and the regression equation was y = 1.8x + 0.72. Table 1 summarizes the potential of using penicillin to predict imipenem susceptibility. The error rates were as follows: false susceptible (very major errors), 0.4%; false resistant (major errors), 0.9%; and minor errors, 2.0%. The absolute categorical agreement between the test results for both drugs was 96.7%. Similar statistics (96.7% absolute categorical agreement; r = 0.87) were documented when ampicillin results were used to predict imipenem susceptibility (Table 1). As noted by Weinstein (12) and numerous early investigations (4, 7), imipenem was relatively inactive against E. faecium strains (data not shown).

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1.   Interpretive error rates obtained by comparing imipenem MICs to those of ampicillin and penicillin to predict susceptibility for 6,538 strains (SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program [1997-2000])

These analyses used the U.S. Food and Drug Administration product package insert interpretive criteria for imipenem tested against enterococci (a MIC of <= 4 µg/ml was considered to indicate susceptibility MIC of >= 16 µg/ml was considered to indicate resistance). These criteria are identical to those published for imipenem by Barry et al. (1) and the manufacturer (11). The use of these breakpoint MICs for imipenem would result in E. faecalis strains (consensus MIC at which 90% of the isolates tested are inhibited [MIC90], 1 µg/ml) being characterized as susceptible, and E. faecium strains (consensus MIC90, 64 µg/ml) being characterized as resistant (7), validating the results of Weinstein (12).

Numerous clinical trial reports document the clinical efficacy of imipenem in the eradication (clinical success) of enterococci from various types of infection. For example, the clinical success rates for the indicated infection sites were as follows: for bacteremia, 100% (five cases) (5); for endocarditis, 100% (two cases) (3); for endomyometritis, 57% (seven cases) (2); for intra-abdominal abscess, 80% (five cases) (2); for pelvic infections, 80% (five cases) (2); for peritonitis, 91% (11 cases) (2), and for skin and soft tissue infections, 91 to 100% (53 cases) (2, 6). The overall rate of clinical success using imipenem was 89% (2, 3, 5, 6).

The NCCLS document tables (see Table 2D of reference 9 and Table 2D of reference 10) should be modified as suggested earlier in this journal (12) to allow the testing of penicillin or ampicillin to predict the susceptibility to imipenem. The comments in the above-mentioned Tables 2D should be modified to read as follows: "1) Ampicillin is the class representative for ampicillin and amoxicillin. Ampicillin results may be used to determine susceptibility to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, ampicillin/sulbactam, imipenem, piperacillin, and piperacillin/tazobactam among non-beta -lactamase producing enterococci; 2) Penicillin susceptibility may be used to predict the susceptibility to ampicillin, amoxicillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, imipenem, piperacillin, and piperacillin/tazobactam for non-beta -lactamase-producing enterococci." With the analyses of these more than 6,000 enterococci of diverse species and geographic isolation, the Weinstein (12) recommendations should be finalized. Total susceptibility testing error rates would be minimized to the range of 0.9 (12) to 3.4% (this study), and serious false-susceptible errors remained at very acceptable levels (0.4 to 1.0%).


    FOOTNOTES

* Phone: (319) 665-3370

Fax: (319) 665-3371

E-mail: ronald-jones{at}jmilabs.com


    REFERENCES

1. Barry, A. L., C. Thornsberry, T. L. Gavan, and R. N. Jones. 1984. Interpretive standards and quality control guidelines for imipenem susceptibility tests with 10-µg disks. J. Clin. Microbiol. 20:988-989[Abstract/Free Full Text].
2. Clissold, S. P., P. A. Todd, and D. M. Campoli-Richards. 1987. Imipenem/cilastatin: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 33:183-241[Medline].
3. Donabedian, H., and E. H. Freimer. 1985. Pathogenesis and treatment of endocarditis. Am. J. Med. 78(Suppl. 6A):127-132[CrossRef][Medline].
4. Eliopoulos, G. M., and R. C. Moellering, Jr. 1981. Susceptibility of enterococci and Listeria monocytogenes to N-formimidoyl thienamycin alone and in combination with an aminoglycoside. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 19:789-793[Abstract/Free Full Text].
5. Eron, L. J. 1985. Imipenem/cilastatin therapy of bacteremia. Am. J. Med. 78(Suppl. 6A):95-99[Medline].
6. Fass, R. J., E. H. Freimer, and R. V. McClaskey. 1985. Treatment of skin and soft tissue infections with imipenem/cilastatin. Am. J. Med. 78(Suppl. 6A):110-112[Medline].
7. Jones, R. N. 1985. Review of the in vitro spectrum of activity of imipenem. Am. J. Med. 78(Suppl. 6A):22-32[Medline].
8. Low, D. E., N. Keller, A. Barth, and R. N. Jones. 2001. Clinical prevalence, antimicrobial susceptibility, and geographic resistance patterns of enterococci: results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1997-1999. Clin. Infect. Dis. 32(Suppl. 2):S133-S145.
9. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2000. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. Approved standard, 7th ed. M2-A7. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
10. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2000. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Approved standard, 5th ed. M7-A5. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, PA.
11. Shungu, D. L., A. T. Cerami, E. Weinberg, T. Capizzi, and H. H. Gadebusch. 1986. Tentative interpretive criteria for in vitro antibacterial susceptibility testing with imipenem. J. Clin. Microbiol. 23:421-424[Abstract/Free Full Text].
12. Weinstein, M. P. 2001. Comparative evaluation of penicillin, ampicillin, and imipenem MICs and susceptibility breakpoints for vancomycin-susceptible and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:2729-2731[Abstract/Free Full Text].
Ronald N. Jones*
Tufts University School of Medicine
Boston, Massachusetts, and
The JONES Group/JMI Laboratories
345 Beaver Kreek Centre, Suite A
North Liberty, Iowa 52317


Journal of Clinical Microbiology, October 2001, p. 3810-3811, Vol. 39, No. 10
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.10.3810-3811.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Higashide, T., Takahashi, M., Kobayashi, A., Ohkubo, S., Sakurai, M., Shirao, Y., Tamura, T., Sugiyama, K. (2005). Endophthalmitis Caused by Enterococcus mundtii. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43: 1475-1476 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, R. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, R. N.