JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
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 El Amin, N.
Right arrow Articles by Weinstein, M. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by El Amin, N.
Right arrow Articles by Weinstein, M. P.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, February 2002, p. 738, Vol. 40, No. 2
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.2.738.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Ampicillin-Sensitive, Imipenem-Resistant Strains of Enterococcus faecium


   LETTER
Top
 Letter
References
 Letter 
 Reference 
 
Weinstein has in an interesting paper (3) suggested that testing the susceptibilities of isolates of enterococci to penicillin or ampicillin accurately predicted the in vitro activity of imipenem, and also pointed out that there are no NCCLS guidelines for testing the susceptibility of enterococci to imipenem. However, we found three strains of Enterococcus faecium that were sensitive to ampicillin but resistant to imipenem in blood and an abdominal abscess from an elderly patient being treated with imipenem at an intensive care unit (ICU) in a Swedish hospital. MICs of ampicillin were from 0.25 to 1 µg/ml, and those of imipenem were 4 to 16 µg/ml. Resistance to imipenem in these strains was caused by increased production of PBP5 with decreased affinity to imipenem (1). Similar strains have been isolated in Switzerland from the blood of eight hospitalized patients (V. Brandt, A. Wenger, and J. Bille, 10th Eur. Congr. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., poster WeP14, 2000), and studies on their resistance mechanisms are in progress. MICs of ampicillin ranged from 0.5 to 6 µg/ml, while MICs of carbapenems (imipenem and meropenem) were >=16 µg/ml. Interestingly, six of the strains were benzyl penicillin resistant by NCCLS standards, making benzyl penicillin a better, though not perfect, indicator of decreased susceptibility to carbapenems. In a recent investigation, hospitals (2), ampicillin-sensitive, imipenem-resistant strains were found in ICUs in Swedish hospitals (2), but since breakpoints for imipenem have not been defined by NCCLS, it is hard to estimate how frequently, if at all, these strains occur outside ICUs. In conclusion, we feel that sensitivity testing with carbapenem should be done whenever treatment of enterococcal infections with this type of drug is considered.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Letter
 References
Letter 
 Reference 
 

  1. Amin, N. E., B. Lund, A. Tjernlund, C. Lundberg, K. Jalakas, and B. Wretlind. 2001. Mechanisms of resistance to imipenem in imipenem-resistant, ampicillin-sensitive Enterococcus faecium. APMIS 109:791-796.
  2. Hällgren, A., H. Abednazari, C. Ekdahl, H. Hanberger, M. Nilsson, A. Samuelsson, E. Svensson, L. E. Nilsson, and the Swedish ICU Study Group. 2001. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of enterococci in intensive care units in Sweden evaluated by different MIC breakpoint systems. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 48:53-62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. 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]
Nagwa El Amin
Bengt Wretlind*
Division of Clinical Bacteriology F82
Department of Microbiology, Pathology
 and Immunology
Huddinge University Hospital
S-14186 Stockholm, Sweden

Aline Wenger
Valérie Brandt
Jacques Bille
Institut de Microbiologie
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire
 Vaudois (CHUV)
CH 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland

* Phone: 46-8-5858 7841
Fax: 46-8-711 3918
E-mail: bengt.wretlind{at}0040impi.ki.se


Author's Reply


   LETTER 
Top
 Letter
 References
 Letter 
Reference 
 
The letter of Amin et al. provides important additional information that supplements the observations in my recent report (1). Their observations appear to be limited to Enterococcus faecium only. Although the authors report that three E. faecium strains from Sweden and eight from Switzerland (V. Brandt, A. Wenger, and J. Bille, 10th Eur. Congr. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., poster WeP14, 2000) were susceptible to ampicillin but not to imipenem, denominator data are not provided. Thus, it is not clear whether such strains are sufficiently common to cause problems if ampicillin or penicillin is tested in vitro against enterococci as a surrogate for the carbapenems. In the report from my institution, only 24 E. faecium strains were tested (1), too small a sample from which to draw conclusions. Data from multiple geographically separated institutions and a larger number of strains, including species other than E. faecalis and E. faecium, are still needed before conclusions can be made. Both MIC and disk diffusion data as well as the correlation between methods should be reported.


   REFERENCE 
Top
 Letter
 References
 Letter 
 Reference 
 

  1. 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.
Melvin P. Weinstein
Departments of Medicine and Pathology
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
  Medical School
1 Robert Wood Johnson Place
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-0019

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, February 2002, p. 738, Vol. 40, No. 2
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.2.738.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:


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 El Amin, N.
Right arrow Articles by Weinstein, M. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by El Amin, N.
Right arrow Articles by Weinstein, M. P.

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS