1 / 21

A sentinel study of antibiotic resistance in Gram-Positive Anaerobic Cocci (GPAC)

A sentinel study of antibiotic resistance in Gram-Positive Anaerobic Cocci (GPAC). J.S. Brazier, V. Hall, T.E. Morris, M. Gal and B.I. Duerden Anaerobe Reference Laboratory NPHS Microbiology Cardiff, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff. Gram-positive Anaerobic Cocci.

nara
Télécharger la présentation

A sentinel study of antibiotic resistance in Gram-Positive Anaerobic Cocci (GPAC)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A sentinel study of antibiotic resistance in Gram-Positive Anaerobic Cocci (GPAC) J.S. Brazier, V. Hall, T.E. Morris, M. Gal and B.I. Duerden Anaerobe Reference Laboratory NPHS Microbiology Cardiff, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff

  2. Gram-positive Anaerobic Cocci • GPAC are a heterogeneous group that are common members of human normal flora in various sites. • They are opportunist pathogens and can be found in a wide variety of infections including deep-seated soft tissue abscesses, ulcers, prosthetic, joint, bone, bloodstream and pelvic infections. • They are often not identified beyond descriptive terms such as “Anaerobic streptococcus” (sic)

  3. GPAC Genera • Peptostreptococcus • Micromonas • Anaerococcus • Peptoniphilus • Finegoldia • Slackia • Peptococcus

  4. Aim of Study • To obtain fresh clinical isolates of GPAC and to perform identification and susceptibility tests to establish the level of antibiotic resistance in this group of anaerobes and to note resistance in particular species.

  5. Components of the Study • Recruitment of sentinels • Collection and referral of isolates • Verification and identification of GPAC • Susceptibility testing • Collate data • Report back to sentinels • Publish results

  6. Sentinel Recruitment • A letter explaining the study was issued to 48 PHLS or PHL collaborating laboratories in England and Wales. • 18 replied in the affermative; Cambridge, Carlisle, Coventry, Gloucester, Hereford, Ipswich, Leeds, Lincoln, Manchester, Nottingham, Peterborough, Plymouth, Preston, Rhyl, Salisbury, Southampton, and UCH and St. George’s in London.

  7. Collection and referral • Labs were asked to collect up to 10 isolates of GPAC from clinical materials irrespective of their potential clinical significance. Transport swabs provided. • Selection criteria: Gram positive coccus that does not grow in air or CO2 enriched atmosphere. Asked to ignore susceptibility/resistance to a 5ug metronidazole disc on primary plates. • Sampling was done simultaneously over a one-month period (point-prevalence study) during Feb. 2002. • Submit isolates to ARL with records of their source.

  8. Verification and identification of GPAC • All isolates were checked for growth in air/CO2, cellular morphology. • Identified according to criteria in VPI Anaerobe Lab. manual and Murdoch (1998) using API 32A kit, analysis of VFA metabolites, odour, UV fluorescence, indole and colonial charactertistics. • In total, 113 isolates were verified as GPAC and included in the study. • GPAC originated from a wide range of sources including; leg ulcers, sebaceous cysts, ears, B/C’s, HVS, cervix, penis, placenta, prostate, toe, heel and foot wounds, knee and leg wounds, laparotomy wounds, pilonidal sinus, perineum and psoas wounds, etc.

  9. GPAC received from each lab: • St. George’s = 9 Preston = 9 • Southampton = 10 Carlisle = 9 • Ipswich = 4 Rhyl = 7 • Hereford = 8 Lincoln = 10 • Leeds = 10 Cambridge = 8 • Nottingham = 6 Coventry = 10 • Manchester = 10 UCH = 9 • Plymouth = 6 Gloucester = 5 • Salisbury = 2 Peterborough = 1

  10. Identifications: • Finegoldia magna = 43 • Ps. anaerobius = 25 • An. vaginalis = 11 • Mic. micros = 5 • Pep. harei = 4 • Pep. assacharolyticus = 3 • Pep ivorii = 3 • An. prevotii = 2 • Pep lacrimalis = 1 • Sl. heliotrinrdeucens = 1 • Ps. sp. (butyrate group) = 15

  11. MIC testing • MIC’s against 10 drugs were determined using the E test method – ARL modification. • McFarland 5.0 suspensions made in saline and swabbed on half plate of FAA blood agar. • Control organism F. magna (NCTC 11804) similarly prepared and swabbed on other half. E test strip placed diametrically between the test and control organisms.

  12. ARL “Stokes” E test • F. magna (NCTC 11804) Test organism

  13. Agents tested: • Penicillin, tetracycline, erythromycin, cefoxitin, clindamycin, chloramphenicol, imipenem, co-amoxyclav, piperacillin-tazobactam and metronidazole. • Plates were incubated anaerobically and read after 48h. in batches of 10 (= 100 plates).

  14. Results • MIC50 and MIC90 values were calculated for each drug/species combination that had 10 or more examples. • Resistance to an agent was defined as an MIC above the breakpoint as listed in the Wadsworth Anaerobe Lab. Manual. • MIC’s of the control (F. magna NCTC 11804) did not vary by more than 1-2 dilutions for each drug between batches

  15. Breakpoint MIC’s as listed in Wadsworth Anaerobe Manual • Penicillin = 2mg/L Chloramphenicol = 32mg/L • Tetracycline = 16mg/L Co-amoyxclav = 16mg/L • Erythromycin = 8mg/L Imipenem = 16mg/l • Cefoxitin = 64mg/L Pip/tazobactam = 128mg/L • Clindamycin = 8mg/L Metronidazole = 32mg/L

  16. Summary of overall GPAC resistance levels (n=113): • Penicillin = 7.1% • Tetracycline = 41.6% • Erythromycin = 27.4% • Cefoxitin = 0% • Clindamycin = 7.1% • Chloramphenicol = 0% • Imipenem = 0% • Co-amoxclav = 3.5% • Pip.tazobactam = 0% • Metronidazole = 0%

  17. F. magna (n=43) • Penicillin = 0% resistant • Tetracycline = 37.2% resistant • Erythromycin = 30.2% resistant • Clindamycin = 6.9% resistant

  18. Ps. anaerobius (n=25) • Penicillin = 28% resistant • Tetracycline = 60% resistant • Co-amoxyclav = 16% resistant • Butyrate Group of GPAC (n= 15): • Tetracycline = 53% resistant • Penicillin = 27% resistant • Cefoxitin = 13% resistant

  19. Macrolide-lincosamide linked resistance in GPAC • Previously reported by Reig et al (1992) who found 17.7% of GPAC with this phenotype. • We found 7 isolates (6.2%) belonging to four different species with MIC’s >256mg/L to both erythromycin and clindamycin. These were; A.prevotii, F. magna, P.harei, and a Ps. sp. (butyrate group). • Reig et al reported that 80% of macrolide resistance in Peptostreptococcus sp. was due to the ermTR gene and that these organisms might be an important reservoir of macrolide resistance for transfer to pathogens such as Strep. pyogenes.

  20. Conclusions • This is one of the largest susceptibility studies specifically on GPAC ever performed. • Significant levels of GPAC tetracycline and macrolide resistance was found in the most commonly isolated species. No Mz resistance found. • Comparisons to other studies included: Wren (1996) in London found 16% resistance of F. magna to penicillin compared to our nil resistance, and 9% resistance to clindamycin compared to our 7.1% resistance. Sanchez’s (1992) study in USA >10% resistance of F. magna to clindamycin.

  21. Acknowledgments • Sentinel laboratories, ARL staff: Val, Mic, Tref, Carol and Brian. • Publication: “ Antibiotic susceptibilities of Gram-positive anaerobic cocci: results of a sentinel study in England and Wales” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2003;52:224-228. Brazier, Hall, Morris, Gal and Duerden.

More Related