Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, May 2001, p. 1581-1584, Vol. 45, No. 5
Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital
Ramón y Cajal, Madrid-28034,1 and
Laboratorio de Infecciones Intrahospitalarias, Centro Nacional
de Microbiología. Instituto Carlos III, Majadahonda,
Madrid-28220,2 Spain
Received 5 September 2000/Returned for modification 29 January
2001/Accepted 21 February 2001
Susceptibility to 41 antimicrobials was studied with 99 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strains, and different
pulsed-field gel electrophoresis profiles were identified among 130 prospectively collected isolates. Moxalactam, doxycycline, minocycline,
and clinafloxacin displayed the highest activity ( Stenotrophomonas
maltophilia, an opportunistic pathogen, has risen to prominence
during the last few years. Infections due to S. maltophilia
usually appear in immunocompromised and intensive care unit
(ICU) patients, particularly those catheterized or on mechanical
ventilation. In addition, S. maltophilia is frequently recovered from the respiratory tract of cystic fibrosis patients. Prolonged hospitalization with broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy may
select this organism from respiratory and gastrointestinal locations or
may enhance its acquisition from environmental sources (7). S. maltophilia is commonly multiresistant
to several antimicrobials, including We present here the activities of a wide range of antimicrobials
against a large collection of S. maltophilia isolates
prospectively and consecutively recovered from 1995 to 1998 at the
Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain, which is a teaching
hospital with 1,200 beds. A total of 130 S. maltophilia
isolates recovered from 105 hospitalized patients in medical and
surgical wards and in ICUs was studied. Isolates were obtained from
respiratory (n = 79), blood (n = 19),
wound (n = 15), and other clinical samples (n = 11) and from hospital environmental sources
(n = 6). Identification was performed with both
the API-20NE (BioMerieux, La Balme, France) and PASCO (Difco, Detroit,
Mich.) systems. Isolates were characterized by pulsed-field gel
electrophoresis (PFGE) with a CHEF-DRII system (Bio-Rad, Hemel
Hempstead, United Kingdom) as previously described (20) to
recognize bacterial clones. Results were interpreted according to
standard criteria (17).
MICs corresponding to 41 antimicrobials (Table
1) were determined by the National
Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) agar dilution
method (15). Susceptibility testing was performed with
Mueller-Hinton agar (Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, Hampshire, United
Kingdom) and a final inoculum of 105 CFU/spot.
MICs were read after a full 24-h incubation at 35°C. NCCLS-recommended American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) isolates (15) and S. maltophilia ATCC 13637 were used
for quality control. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole susceptibility
was also assayed with E-test strips on Mueller-Hinton agar supplemented
with 0.1 U of thymidine phosphorylase (Sigma, St. Louis, Mo.) per ml.
MICs were analyzed with the Epi-Info 6.04a program (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.).
0066-4804/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AAC.45.5.1581-1584.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Antimicrobial Susceptibilities of Unique
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Clinical Strains
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
98%
susceptibility). Ticarcillin resistance (75%) was reverted by
clavulanate in 25% of strains. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole
resistance was 26.2% (
4 [trimethoprim]/76 [sulfamethoxazole]
µg/ml) and dropped to 11.1% when an 8/152-µg/ml
breakpoint was applied based on its bimodal MIC distribution.
Resistance was lower when unique strains were considered, because
clonal organisms contribute to resistance.
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
-lactams, due to heterogeneous
production of
-lactamases (7). Reduced permeability and
expression of efflux pumps could enhance this resistance phenotype
(2, 23, 24). Moreover, the recent demonstration of genetic
transfer between gram-positive organisms and S. maltophilia
may explain the evolution toward an extended multiresistance phenotype
(3).
TABLE 1.
Antimicrobial susceptibilities of 41 antimicrobials
against 99 S. maltophilia strains with different
PFGE profiles
In our study, although isolates had the same hospital origin, a high clonal diversity was observed, because 99 well-defined strains were identified among 130 S. maltophilia isolates. Despite this fact and the evidence that most infections due to S. maltophilia are independently acquired (5, 9), several cases of nosocomial outbreaks have been reported (1, 8). In these situations, repetitive isolates, particularly those from unrecognized outbreaks, could affect cumulative susceptibility testing reports. To avoid this problem, redundant isolates are commonly eliminated with demographic criteria, but rarely with epidemiological molecular criteria. In our study, isolates displaying an identical PFGE profile from the same patient or as a result of patient-to-patient transmission were excluded, and only 99 unique strains were initially considered for susceptibility analysis.
On the other hand, independent studies have demonstrated methodological
problems associated with susceptibility testing of S. maltophilia (4, 6, 7, 18). In our study, in the absence of specific NCCLS recommendations for S. maltophilia, the agar dilution technique was used, but MICs were
read after a full 24-h incubation at 35°C (13). This was
a compromise between the 16- to 20-h incubation conditions proposed by
the NCCLS for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other nonmembers of
the family Enterobacteriaceae and the 48 h recommended
by Carroll et al. (6) for S. maltophilia when
testing nonbacteriostatic agents. With this methodology, and despite
the remarkable genomic diversity, the S. maltophilia susceptibility profile of 99 strains demonstrated high phenotypic consistency. In general, and in agreement with previous studies (7), S. maltophilia was inherently resistant to
a variety of antimicrobials, including
-lactams, aminoglycosides,
and macrolides. As expected, nearly all strains were resistant to
imipenem (99%). Although meropenem was eight times more active than
imipenem and showed less resistance (87.9%), none of the S. maltophilia strains should be considered truly susceptible to this
compound due to the easy and rapid selection of stable resistant
mutants when exposed to carbapenems (11).
Across the
-lactams, moxalactam displayed the highest activity, with
only 2% resistance. Less than 25% of S. maltophilia strains were susceptible to ticarcillin, piperacillin, and aztreonam (Table 1). Interestingly, clavulanate reverted ticarcillin and aztreonam resistance in 27.3 and 26.2% of strains, respectively. The
presence of L2
-lactamases could be responsible for this effect,
because these 2be group
-lactamases are inhibited well by
clavulanate and, to a lesser extent, by tazobactam
(21). Piperacillin-tazobactam resistance (54.5%) was
higher than ticarcillin-clavulanate resistance (46.5%), but
lower than aztreonam-clavulanate resistance (65.6%). When the
aztreonam NCCLS breakpoint (15) was used, resistance to
the last combination was higher than that observed by other authors
(4), probably due to the lower clavulanate concentration
used. Although this combination has been shown to be bacteriostatic
(14), the clinical value of this finding has been
questioned, because both compounds exhibit different pharmacokinetics.
All aminoglycosides showed reduced activity against S. maltophilia strains, which could be due to the constitutive production of a chromosomal aminoglycoside-modifying enzyme (12) and to the expression of efflux systems (24). These pumps could also affect other antimicrobials and barely contributed to tetracycline, quinolone, and chloramphenicol resistance (2). Therefore, minocycline (mode MIC, 0.1 µg/ml) and doxycycline (1 µg/ml) showed higher intrinsic activity than tetracycline (32 µg/ml). The rate of tetracycline resistance was 86%; the rates of doxycycline and minocycline resistance were less than 1%. This result could be of particular clinical interest.
In agreement with other studies (16, 19, 22), new fluoroquinolones have a potential role in the treatment of S. maltophilia infections. Trovafloxacin, clinafloxacin, gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin, grepafloxacin, and levofloxacin displayed similar intrinsic activities, with MICs at which 90% of the isolates tested are inhibited (MIC90s) four- to eightfold lower than those of ciprofloxacin. Moreover, they inhibited nearly all of the S. maltophilia strains tested at concentrations achievable in serum or the pulmonary tract. At 2 µg/ml, more than 95% of strains were inhibited by new fluoroquinolones, whereas the corresponding values for ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin were 86.8 and 87.8%, respectively. Contrary to quinolones, macrolides displayed high MICs for S. maltophilia. These values do not predict clinical benefits, but they could eventually play an adjunctive role, as in cystic fibrosis and panbrochiolitis patients colonized with P. aeruginosa (10).
Although the combination trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is
bacteriostatic, it is considered to be the drug of choice in S. maltophilia infections. Susceptibility testing of this combination is particularly problematic in S. maltophilia, and different
results have been observed when different methods and conditions were used (4, 7, 18). In our study, susceptibility was assayed with both agar dilution and E-test strips on Mueller-Hinton agar supplemented with 0.1 U of thymidine phosphorylase per ml in order to
interfere with thymidine that may be present in the medium. As
previously reported (4), a high level of agreement among these techniques was obtained (data not shown).
Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole resistance was detected in 26.2% of
strains, which is higher than the rates (0% to 10%) previously
reported (4, 5, 18). Different methodologies and
breakpoints could be responsible for these differences. The number of
strains inhibited at each concentration strongly suggests a bimodal
distribution (Fig. 1). Resistant
populations can be clearly differentiated with a concentration of 8 [trimethoprim]/152 [sulfamethoxazole] µg/ml, which may represent
a better microbiological resistance breakpoint than that offered by the
NCCLS (4/76 µg/ml) (15). With a breakpoint of 8/152
µg/ml, resistance rates dropped to 11.1%.
|
As previously stated, S. maltophilia isolates belonging to
clonal groups could affect susceptibility analysis. In fact, highly diverse environmental isolates are less resistant than clonal nosocomial isolates (5). In our study, rates of resistance to
-lactams and aminoglycosides were slightly higher when repetitive isolates were included in susceptibility analysis. Moreover,
ciprofloxacin and tetracycline resistance rates were significantly
lower (P < 0.01, chi-square test) in S. maltophilia strains with different PFGE profiles
(n = 99) than in isolates belonging to clonal groups (n = 31). Ciprofloxacin resistance rates in both groups
were 13.1 and 29.0%, respectively, and tetracycline resistance rates
were 85.5 and 96.8%, respectively. It is worth noting that
ciprofloxacin resistance in clonal isolates was linked with higher
quinolone, tetracycline, and chloramphenicol MICs. To the contrary,
minocycline and doxycycline MICs were less affected in these isolates.
This phenotype of cross-resistance to chloramphenicol and tetracycline has been previously associated with efflux pumps in S. maltophilia (2).
In conclusion, the susceptibility profile of S. maltophilia strains showed a high phenotypic homogeneity despite their high genomic diversity. Nevertheless, resistance rates were higher when isolates belonging to clonal groups were considered. Selection and spread of these isolates will enhance the antimicrobial resistance rates of this organism.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
S. Valdezate was supported by a research grant (2114/1998) from the Consejería de Educación, Comunidad de Madrid, Spain. This study was partially supported by the Microbial Sciences Foundation, Madrid, Spain.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Servicio de Microbiología. Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Carretera de Colmenar, Km 9,100. 28034-Madrid. Spain. Phone: 34-91-3368330. Fax: 34-91-3368809. E-mail: rcanton{at}hrc.insalud.es.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Alfieri, N., K. Ramotar, P. Armstrong, M. E. Spornitz, G. Ross, J. Winnick, and D. R. Cook. 1999. Two consecutive outbreaks of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (Xanthomonas maltophilia) in an intensive-care unit defined by restriction fragment-length polymorphism typing. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 20:553-556[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 2. | Alonso, A., and J. L. Martínez. 1997. Multiple antibiotic resistance in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:1140-1142[Abstract]. |
| 3. |
Alonso, A.,
P. Sanchez, and J. L. Martínez.
2000.
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia D457R contains a cluster of genes from gram-positive bacteria involved in antibiotic and heavy metal resistance.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
44:1778-1782 |
| 4. | Arpi, M., M. A. Victor, I. Mortensen, A. Gottschau, and B. Bruun. 1996. In vitro susceptibility of 124 Xanthomonas maltophilia (Stenotrophomonas maltophilia) isolates. APMIS 104:108-114[Medline]. |
| 5. |
Berg, G.,
N. Roskot, and K. Smalla.
1999.
Genotypic and phenotypic relationships between clinical and environmental isolates of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
37:3594-3600 |
| 6. | Carroll, K. C., S. Chen, R. Nelson, D. M. Campbell, J. D. Claridge, M. W. Garrison, J. Kramp, C. Malone, M. Hoffmann, and D. E. Anderson. 1998. Comparison of various in vitro susceptibility methods for testing Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 32:229-235[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 7. |
Denton, M., and K. G. Kerr.
1998.
Microbiology and clinical aspects of infection associated with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.
Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
11:57-80 |
| 8. | García de Viedma, D., M. Marín, E. Cercenado, R. Alonso, M. Rodríguez-Creixems, and E. Bouza. 1999. Evidence of nosocomial Stenotrophomonas maltophilia cross-infection in a neonatology unit analyzed by three molecular typing methods. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 20:816-820[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 9. |
Hauben, L.,
L. Vauterin,
E. R. Moore,
B. Hoste, and J. Swings.
1999.
Genomic diversity of the genus Stenotrophomonas.
Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol.
49:1749-1760 |
| 10. |
Howe, R. A., and R. C. Spencer.
1997.
Macrolides for the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections?
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
40:153-155 |
| 11. |
Howe, R. A.,
M. P. Wilson,
T. R. Walsh, and M. R. Millar.
1997.
Susceptibility testing of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia to carbapenems.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
40:13-17 |
| 12. |
Lambert, T.,
M. C. Ploy,
F. Denis, and P. Courvalin.
1999.
Characterization of the chromosomal aac(6')-Iz gene of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
43:2366-2371 |
| 13. |
Lecso-Bonet, M., and E. Bergone-Bérézin.
1997.
Susceptibility of 100 strains of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia to three -lactams and five -lactam- -lactamase inhibitor combinations.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
40:717-720 |
| 14. |
Muñoz Bellido, J. L.,
S. Muñoz Criado,
I. García García,
M. A. Alonso Manzanares,
M. N. Gutiérrez Zufiaurre, and J. A. García Rodríguez.
1997.
In vitro activities of -lactam- -lactamase inhibitor combinations against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: correlation between methods for testing inhibitory activity, time-kill curves, and bactericidal activity.
Antmicrob. Agents Chemother.
41:2612-2615[Abstract].
|
| 15. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2001. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Eleventh informational supplement, vol. 20, no. 1. Document M100-S11. In National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 16. |
Pankuch, G. A.,
M. R. Jacobs, and P. C. Applebaum.
1994.
Susceptibilities of 123 strains of Xanthomonas maltophilia to clinafloxacin, PD 131628, PD 138312, PD 140248, ciprofloxacin, and ofloxacin.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
38:369-370 |
| 17. | Tenover, F. C., R. D. Arbeit, R. V. Goering, P. A. Mickelsen, B. E. Murray, D. H. Persing, and B. Swaminathan. 1995. Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis: criteria for bacterial strain typing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:2233-2239[Medline]. |
| 18. | Traub, W. H., B. Leonhard, and D. Bauer. 1998. Antibiotic susceptibility of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (Xanthomonas maltophilia): comparative (NCCLS criteria) evaluation of antimicrobial drugs with agar dilution and the agar disk diffusion (Bauer-Kirby) test. Chemotherapy 44:164-173[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 19. | Valdezate, S., A. Vindel, F. Baquero, and R. Cantón. 2000. Comparative in vitro activity of quinolones against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 18:908-911. |
| 20. | Valdezate, S., A. Vindel, L. Maiz, F. Baquero, H. Escobar, and R. Cantón. 2001. Persistence and variability of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in cystic fibrosis patients, Madrid, 1991-1998. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7:113-122[Medline]. |
| 21. |
Walsh, T. R.,
A. P. MacGowan, and P. M. Bennett.
1997.
Sequence analysis and enzyme kinetics of the L2 serine -lactamase from Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
41:1460-1464[Abstract].
|
| 22. |
Weiss, K.,
C. Restieri,
E. De Carolis,
M. Laverdière, and H. Guay.
2000.
Comparative activity of new quinolones against 326 clinical isolates of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
45:363-365 |
| 23. | Yamazaki, E., J. Ishii, K. Sato, and T. Nakae. 1989. The barrier function of the outer membrane of Pseudomonas maltophilia in the diffusion of saccharides and beta-lactam antibiotics. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 51:85-88[Medline]. |
| 24. |
Zhang, L.,
X. Z. Li, and K. Poole.
2000.
Multiple antibiotic resistance in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: involvement of a multidrug efflux system.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
44:287-293 |
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»