Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2001, p. 2729-2731, Vol. 39, No. 7
Departments of Medicine and Pathology,
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
08901-0019
Received 19 January 2001/Returned for modification 28 March
2001/Accepted 3 May 2001
Although imipenem has in vitro activity against Enterococcus
faecalis and Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for treatment of infections caused by this microorganism, there are no
NCCLS guidelines for susceptibility testing of imipenem versus
enterococci. Therefore, the in vitro activities of penicillin, ampicillin, imipenem, and vancomycin against 201 blood isolates of
E. faecalis and 24 blood isolates of Enterococcus
faecium were compared. The susceptibility of isolates to
penicillin or ampicillin accurately predicted the in vitro activity of
imipenem. Since the susceptibility of enterococci to imipenem can be
predicted by the results obtained by testing of penicillin or
ampicillin, testing of imipenem by clinical laboratories probably is
not necessary.
Imipenem, the first
widely used carbapenem antimicrobial agent, was shown in early studies
to have good in vitro activity against Enterococcus
faecalis (1, 4, 5, 9, 10) but little activity against
Enterococcus faecium (2). However, present
NCCLS-approved standards for in vitro susceptibility testing (6,
7) provide no guidance for testing imipenem versus enterococci, nor are there statements that in vitro susceptibility results for other
antimicrobial agents can predict the in vitro activity of imipenem
against these bacteria. Nevertheless, clinicians and microbiologists
attending a recent meeting of the NCCLS Subcommittee on Antimicrobial
Susceptibility Testing (June 1999) agreed that penicillin and/or
ampicillin treatment likely would predict the activity of imipenem
(M. P. Weinstein, personal observation). In the absence of
systematically gathered and published data, however, the question
remains open. Therefore, 225 isolates from patients with enterococcal
bacteremia were tested against imipenem, penicillin, ampicillin, and
vancomycin to determine the in vitro activity of each agent as well as
the degree to which each drug predicted the in vitro activity of imipenem.
Enterococcal isolates causing bacteremia in patients hospitalized at
Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital from July 1997 through October
1999 were tested. These included 201 E. faecalis (24 vancomycin-resistant) and 24 E. faecium (19 vancomycin-resistant) isolates. All isolates were identified in the
Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Clinical Microbiology
Laboratory using dried-overnight (conventional) gram-positive
combination panels in the MicroScan WalkAway 96 Instrument (Dade
MicroScan, Inc., West Sacramento, Calif.). Species identification of
strains with unusual susceptibility patterns (e.g.,
vancomycin-intermediate E. faecalis and
ampicillin-susceptible E. faecium) was confirmed by
conventional microbiological testing (3). Prior to
testing, isolates were thawed and subcultured twice to ensure purity
and viability.
Each isolate was tested versus penicillin, ampicillin, imipenem, and
vancomycin. Solutions of all antimicrobials were prepared from standard
powders of known potencies obtained either from the manufacturer of the
compound or from a commercial source (Sigma, St. Louis, Mo.). MICs were
determined in duplicate by the microdilution method of the NCCLS using
cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (7).
Of the 201 E. faecalis strains tested, 175 were
susceptible to vancomycin (MIC
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.7.2729-2731.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Comparative Evaluation of Penicillin, Ampicillin, and Imipenem
MICs and Susceptibility Breakpoints for Vancomycin-Susceptible and
Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecalis and
Enterococcus faecium
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
4 µg/ml), 2 were intermediate
(MIC = 8 µg/ml for both strains), and 24 were resistant
(MIC
32 µg/ml). The MIC ranges, MICs at which 50% of the
isolates tested were inhibited (MIC50s), and
MIC90s of penicillin, ampicillin, and imipenem
were comparable for vancomycin-susceptible and vancomycin-resistant isolates (Table 1). The
MIC90s of all three agents were in the susceptible range even for the vancomycin-resistant isolates. Of the 24 E. faecium strains tested, 5 were susceptible to vancomycin and 19 were resistant to vancomycin. The penicillin, ampicillin, and
imipenem MIC ranges for the five vancomycin-susceptible strains are
shown in Table 1. Two of the five strains were susceptible to
penicillin and ampicillin, whereas MICs for three strains were of
64
µg/ml. For the 19 vancomycin-resistant strains, MIC ranges and
MIC50s and MIC90s of all
three antimicrobials were >64 µg/ml (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Susceptibility of vancomycin-susceptible and
vancomycin-resistant enterococci to penicillin, ampicillin, and
imipenema
Using the present published NCCLS breakpoints for penicillin and
ampicillin versus enterococci (7) (susceptible,
8
µg/ml; resistant,
16 µg/ml) and the breakpoints for imipenem
published in the manufacturer's package insert approved by the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) (susceptible,
4 µg/ml; intermediate, 8 µg/ml; resistant,
16 µg/ml), the ability of penicillin and ampicillin MICs to predict in vitro susceptibility of enterococci versus imipenem was assessed. As shown in Table
2, of the 201 E. faecalis
strains tested, penicillin results correctly predicted imipenem results
for 200 (99.5%) strains, and ampicillin results correctly predicted
the results for imipenem for all 201 strains. For the 24 E. faecium strains, the results for penicillin and ampicillin were
identical. Of two penicillin- and ampicillin-susceptible strains, one
was susceptible to imipenem and one was intermediate (Table 2). All 22 strains that were resistant to penicillin and ampicillin were also
resistant to imipenem.
|
The results of this study confirm the widely held but poorly documented belief that the in vitro activity of penicillin and ampicillin versus E. faecalis and E. faecium accurately predicts that of imipenem. The importance of this information lies in the fact that enterococci often are potential pathogens of mixed infections for which a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent such as imipenem has a therapeutic role. Imipenem currently has FDA indications for use in intra-abdominal infections, skin and skin structure infections, and gynecologic infections caused by E. faecalis but not by E. faecium. The drug also is used in some institutions as monotherapy for patients with neutropenic fever.
Presently, there are no NCCLS susceptibility testing guidelines for imipenem against enterococci (6, 7) and, based on the data from this study, specific testing guidelines for imipenem do not appear to be needed. However, several limitations of the data make firm conclusions from this report problematic. First, all of the microorganisms tested came from a single institution. Second, a relatively small number of E. faecium strains were tested. Although it is possible that these strains might represent only a few clones, prior work from our institution has shown our E. faecium strains to be polyclonal (H. Soliman, K. L. Joho, K. Damerau, R. Kuk, M. P. Weinstein, and J. F. John, Abstr. 93rd Gen. Meet. Am. Soc. Microbiol. 1993, abstr. A-80, p. 15, 1993). Third, no species other than E. faecalis and E. faecium were included.
To address these limitations, it will be necessary to study additional E. faecalis and E. faecium strains from other geographic regions and, if possible, to include less common enterococcal species, such as Enterococcus gallinarum, Enterococcus casseliflavus, Enterococcus raffinosus, and Enterococcus avium, thereby meeting the suggested criteria of the NCCLS (8). If the initial results from the present study are confirmed, microbiology laboratories and clinicians will benefit from a therapeutic note in the NCCLS guidelines and tables indicating that the in vitro results obtained for penicillin or ampicillin will accurately predict the in vitro susceptibility of imipenem.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
This study was supported in part by Merck & Co., Inc.
I thank James H. Jorgensen for review of the manuscript and Judy Rothberg for technical assistance.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Mailing address: Departments of Medicine and Pathology, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 1 Robert Wood Johnson Pl., New Brunswick, NJ 08901-0019. Phone: (732) 235-7713. Fax: (732) 235-7951. E-mail: weinstei{at}umdnj.edu.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Cohn, D. L.,
L. G. Reimer, and L. B. Reller.
1982.
Comparative in-vitro activity of MK0787 (N-formimidoyl thienamycin) against 540 blood culture isolates.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
9:183-194 |
| 2. |
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 |
| 3. | Facklam, R. R., D. F. Sahm, and L. M. Teixeira. 1999. Enterococcus, p. 297-305. In P. R. Murray, E. J. Baron, M. A. Pfaller, F. C. Tenover, and R. H. Yolken (ed.), Manual of clinical microbiology, 7th ed. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 4. |
Horadam, V. W.,
J. D. Smilack,
C. L. Montgomery, and J. Werringloer.
1980.
In vitro activity of N-formimidoyl thienamycin (MK0787), a crystalline derivative of thienamycin.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
18:557-561 |
| 5. | Kropp, H., L. Gerckens, J. G. Sundelof, and F. M. Kahan. 1985. Antibacterial activity of imipenem: the first thienamycin antibiotic. Rev. Infect. Dis. 7(Suppl.):S411-S416. |
| 6. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2000. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. Approved standard, 7th ed., p. M2-A7. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 7. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2000. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Approved standard, 5th ed., p. M7-A-5. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 8. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1998. Development of in vitro susceptibility testing criteria and quality control parameters. Tentative guideline, 3rd ed., p. M23-T3. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 9. |
Neu, H. C., and P. Labthavikul.
1982.
Comparative in vitro activity of N-formimidoyl thienamycin against gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic species and its -lactamase stability.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
21:180-187 |
| 10. |
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 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»