Korean J Clin Microbiol.  2008 Oct;11(2):78-83. 10.5145/KJCM.2008.11.2.78.

Distributions of Macrolide-Lincosamide-Streptogramin B Resistance Phenotypes in Clinical Isolates of Staphylococi

• Uh Y
• Hwang GY
• Jang IH
• Kwon O
• Yoon KJ
• Kim HY

• KMID: 1480973
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5145/KJCM.2008.11.2.78

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increased resistance rates to macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B (MLSB) antibiotics among clinical isolates of staphylococci are considered as a consequence of an expanded use of these antibiotics in the treatment of Gram-positive infections. The proportion of MLSB resistance phenotypes of staphylococci is quite different by geographical variations and study periods. The aim of the present study was to determine the distribution of MLSB resistance phenotypes among clinical isolates of staphylococci in a university hospital.
METHODS
The MLSB resistance phenotypes of clinical isolates of staphylococci were investigated by the double-disk diffusion test using erythromycin and clindamycin disks.
RESULTS
Of 7,916 isolates, 55.7% exhibited a constitutive resistance phenotype (cMLSB) whereas 8.1% expressed an inducible resistance phenotype (iMLSB). Among 3,419 coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS), 32.6% and 10.0% exhibited cMLSB and iMLSB resistance phenotypes, respectively. Of 4,497 Staphylococcus aureus isolates, 73.1% and 6.8% were cMLSB and iMLSB resistance phenotypes, respectively. cMLSB was detected among 90.2% of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), 46.5% of methicillin-resistant CNS (MRCNS), 3.2% of methicillin-susceptible CNS (MSCNS), and 2.2% of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). iMLSB was detected among 16.5% of MSSA, 11.5% of MRCNS, 6.7% of MSCNS, and 4.4% of MRSA.
CONCLUSION
MLSB resistance was more prevalent among S. aureus isolates than CNS strains. Although cMLSB was the most frequently detected resistance phenotype among the total staphylococcal isolates, methicillin-susceptible strains exhibited somewhat higher iMLSB resistance rates compared with methicillin-resistant strains.

Keyword

Staphylococci; Staphylococcus aureus; MLSB resistance; Constitutive; Inducible

MeSH Terms

Anti-Bacterial Agents
Clindamycin
Diffusion
Erythromycin
Methicillin Resistance
Phenotype
Staphylococcus aureus
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Clindamycin
Erythromycin

Reference

References

1. Maltezou HC and Giamarelloub H. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006; 27:87–96.

2. Lewis JS and Jorgensen JH. Inducible clindamycin resistance in staphylococci: should clinicians and microbiologists be concerned? Clin Infect Dis. 2005; 40:280–5.

3. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. fourteenth informational supplement. NCCLS document M100-S14. Wayne, PA; NCCLS. 2004.

4. Bacterial sensitivity test KB Disk Eiken operation manual. Eiken, Tokyo, Japan. 2003.

5. CDC. CDC web sites on infection control home. Community-associated MRSA information for clinicians.www.cdc.gov/nci-dod/dhqp/ar_mrsa_ca_clinicians.html. [Online] (updated on Febrary 2005).

6. Lim JA, Kwon AR, Kim SK, Chong Y, Lee K, Choi EC. Prevalence of resistance to macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin antibiotics in Gram-positive cocci isolated in a Korean hospital. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002; 49:489–95.

7. Nicola FG, McDougal LK, Biddle JW, Tenover FC. Characterization of erythromycin-resistant isolates of Staphylococcus aureus recovered in the United States from 1958 through 1969. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998 42:. 3024–7.

8. Schmitz FJ, Verhoef J, Fluit AC. Prevalence of resistance to MLS antibiotics in 20 European university hospitals participating in the European SENTRY surveillance programme. Sentry Participants Group. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999; 43:783–92.

9. Chong Y, Lee K, et al. eds. New antimicrobial resistance and mechanisms of bacteria. 1st ed. Seoul; Seoheung Publishing Com-pany.,2002:. 181–97.

10. LaPlante KL, Leonard SN, Andes DR, Craig WA, Rybak MJ. Activities of clindamycin, daptomycin, doxycycline, linezolid, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and vancomycin against community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with inducible clindamycin resistance in murine thigh infection and in vitro pharmacodynamic models. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008; 52:2156–62.

11. Westh H, Hougaard DM, Vuust J, Rosdahl VT. Prevalence of erm gene classes in erythromycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated between 1959 and 1988. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995; 39:369–73.

12. Thakker-Varia S, Jenssen WD, Moon-McDermott L, Weinstein MP, Dubin DT. Molecular epidemiology of macrolides-lincosamides-streptogramin B resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and coagu-lase-negative staphylococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1987; 31:735–43.

13. Eady EA, Ross JI, Tipper JL, Walters CE, Cove JH, Noble WC. Distribution of genes encoding erythromycin ribosomal methylases and an erythromycin efflux pump in epidemiologically distinct groups of staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993; 31:211–7.

14. Cetin ES, Gunes H, Kaya S, Aridogan BC, Demirci M. Macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance phenotypes in clinical staphylococcal isolates. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008; 31:364–8.

15. Kim JS, Kim HS, Song W, Cho HC, Lee KM, Kim EC. Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Staphylococcus aureus isolated in 13 Korean hospitals. Korean J Lab Med. 2004; 24:223–9.

16. Uh Y, Kim HY, et al. eds. Antimicrobial agents and antimicrobial susceptibility test. eds. 1st ed.Paju: Korean Studies Information Co., Ltd.;2006. p. 556–7.