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.
Ampicillin-Sensitive, Imipenem-Resistant Strains of Enterococcus faecium

LETTER
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
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
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
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:
-
Metzidie, E., Manolis, E. N., Pournaras, S., Sofianou, D., Tsakris, A.
(2006). Spread of an unusual penicillin- and imipenem-resistant but ampicillin-susceptible phenotype among Enterococcus faecalis clinical isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother
57: 158-160
[Full Text]
-
Lee, H. K., Park, Y.-J., Kwon, H. J., Lee, E. J., Kim, B. K., Kang, C. S.
(2004). Evaluation of Vitek System for Susceptibility Testing of Enterococcus faecium Isolates. Annals of Clinical & Laboratory Science
34: 83-86
[Abstract]
[Full Text]