This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Karlowsky, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sahm, D. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Karlowsky, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sahm, D. F.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, June 2002, p. 1989-1992, Vol. 46, No. 6
0066-4804/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AAC.46.6.1989-1992.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Determining Linezolid’s Baseline In Vitro Activity in Canada Using Gram-Positive Clinical Isolates Collected prior to Its National Release

James A. Karlowsky,1* Laurie J. Kelly,1 Ian A. Critchley,1 Mark E. Jones,2 Clyde Thornsberry,3 and Daniel F. Sahm1

Focus Technologies, Inc., Herndon, Virginia,1 Focus Technologies, Inc., Hilversum, The Netherlands,2 Focus Technologies, Inc., Franklin, Tennessee3

Received 2 November 2001/ Returned for modification 14 February 2002/ Accepted 12 March 2002


arrow
ABSTRACT
 
All of the isolates of Staphylococcus aureus (n = 317), Enterococcus species (n = 315), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 282), and Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 176) collected at 16 Canadian microbiology laboratories from October 2000 to April 2001 were susceptible to linezolid. Future studies will determine how linezolid clinical use in Canada affects its in vitro activity.


arrow
TEXT
 
Oxazolidinones are synthetic protein synthesis inhibitors with a unique mechanism of action. They noncovalently bind to 23S rRNA residues of 50S ribosomal subunits and prevent the formation of functional 70S initiation complexes (2). The primary binding sites of oxazolidinones lie in the central loop of domain V of the 23S rRNA, clustering at the peptidyl transferase center (9, 10, 22, 24, 27). The presence of multiple copies of rRNA genes in clinically relevant bacterial species suggests that the selection of both in vitro (8, 28) and clinical mutants simultaneously resistant in each rRNA gene copy would be unlikely. Limited numbers of in vitro-selected, oxazolidinone-resistant enterococcal mutants (18) and resistant clinical isolates of enterococci and Staphylococcus aureus cultured posttherapy (4, 25; G. E. Zurenko, W. M. Todd, B. Hafkin, B. Meyers, C. Kauffman, J. Bock, J. Slightom, and D. Shinabarger, Abstr. 39th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., abstr. 848, p. 118, 1999) have been reported. Changes to single copies of rRNA genes may be recessive, explaining the difficulty in selecting resistant mutants.

Linezolid has demonstrated clinical utility in treating infections due to aerobic gram-positive cocci; its in vitro spectrum of activity also includes certain gram-negative species, including anaerobes, and mycobacteria (2, 7, 26). Previous in vitro studies have demonstrated that, relative to susceptible isolates, the activity of linezolid is maintained against resistant and multidrug-resistant gram-positive cocci, including methicillin (oxacillin)-resistant staphylococci, penicillin-resistant pneumococci, and glycopeptide-resistant enterococci (1, 3, 8, 16, 26).

As a prelude to the May 2001 release of linezolid in Canada, a study was conducted to establish a baseline of activity for linezolid and its market competitors. Isolates were collected at 16 laboratories in Canada from October 2000 to April 2001. Fifteen laboratories served tertiary-care hospitals, and one was a community hospital laboratory. Six laboratories in Ontario participated, as did four laboratories in Quebec and two laboratories each in British Columbia, the prairie region (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba), and the Atlantic region (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland).

The isolates, limited to one per patient, were prospectively isolated from hospital inpatients and outpatients. Isolates were shipped to our central laboratory (Focus Technologies, Inc., Herndon, Va.), subcultured to purity on appropriate media, and stocked, and their identities were confirmed by standard laboratory methods. Of the isolates submitted, 317 S. aureus, 282 Streptococcus pneumoniae, 266 Enterococcus faecalis, 176 Staphylococcus epidermidis, 36 Enterococcus faecium, and 13 Enterococcus sp. (non-E. faecalis and non-E. faecium) isolates were viable and their identities were confirmed to the species level.

Isolate susceptibilities were determined by the NCCLS broth microdilution method (12) on frozen panels manufactured by TREK Diagnostics (Westlake, Ohio). MICs were interpreted in accordance with NCCLS guidelines (13, 14).

For isolates of methicillin (oxacillin)-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and methicillin (oxacillin)-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), the linezolid MIC for 90% of the isolates tested (MIC90) was 4 µg/ml and the modal MIC was 2 µg/ml (Table 1). For all of the isolates collected in each of the five geographic regions of Canada (British Columbia, the prairie region, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic region), the linezolid MIC90 was 2 or 4 µg/ml and the modal MIC was 2 µg/ml. Linezolid MICs were distributed over narrow ranges for both MRSA (1 to 4 µg/ml) and MSSA (0.5 to 4 µg/ml) isolates. Specimen source (blood and cerebral spinal fluid; skin, soft tissue, and wound; urine; upper respiratory tract; and lower respiratory tract), patient gender, patient age (<18 years, 18 to 65 years, and >65 years), and inpatient or outpatient status did not influence linezolid MIC90s, MIC ranges, or modal MICs (data not shown). Similarly, patient demographic characteristics did not influence linezolid MIC90s, MIC ranges, or modal MICs for S. epidermidis, S. pneumoniae, or Enterococcus sp. isolates (data not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. MICs of linezolid and comparative agents and their interpretationsa for 317 isolates of S. aureus and 176 isolates of S. epidermidis

Linezolid had an MIC90 and a modal MIC of 1 µg/ml for both methicillin (oxacillin)-susceptible S. epidermidis and methicillin (oxacillin)-resistant S. epidermidis (MRSE) isolates. For all of the isolates collected in each of the five geographic regions of Canada, the linezolid MIC90 was 1 or 2 µg/ml and the modal MIC was 1 µg/ml. Linezolid MICs were distributed over narrow ranges for both MRSE (0.5 to 2 µg/ml) and methicillin (oxacillin)-susceptible S. epidermidis (0.25 to 4 µg/ml) isolates.

Linezolid had an MIC90 and a modal MIC of 1 µg/ml for penicillin-susceptible, -intermediate, and -resistant S. pneumoniae isolates, and the linezolid MICs were distributed over a narrow range for all of the isolates (<=0.25 to 1 µg/ml) (Table 2). For all of the isolates collected in each of the five geographic regions of Canada, the linezolid MIC90 and the modal MIC were 1 µg/ml.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. MICs of linezolid and comparative agents and their interpretationsa for 282 isolates of S. pneumoniae

Linezolid had MIC90s and modal MICs of 1 µg/ml for E. faecalis and 2 µg/ml for E. faecium (Table 3). The linezolid MIC for all of the other Enterococcus sp. isolates tested was <=2 µg/ml (data not shown). For the E. faecalis isolates collected in each of the five defined geographic regions of Canada, the linezolid MIC90 was 1 or 2 µg/ml and the modal MIC was 1 µg/ml.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3. MICs of linezolid and comparative agents and their interpretationsa for 266 isolates of E. faecalis and 36 isolates of E. faecium

The MIC profiles for the isolates were also examined by species for resistance to zero, one, two, and three or more antimicrobial agents. Linezolid MIC distributions and MIC90s were essentially unchanged for pansusceptible and one-drug-, two-drug-, and multidrug-resistant (resistant to three or more antimicrobials) isolates of staphylococci, S. pneumoniae, and enterococci. The MICs of linezolid were not influenced by the resistance of staphylococci to ß-lactams, fluoroquinolones, or macrolides; the resistance of pneumococci to penicillin, macrolides, or fluoroquinolones; or the resistance of enterococci to ampicillin or vancomycin.

Infections attributable to MRSA, MRSE, vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus, penicillin-resistant and multidrug-resistant S. pneumoniae, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci are increasingly being identified in Canada, the United States, and worldwide and underlie the need for therapeutic alternatives, particularly oral formulations (5, 11, 15, 19, 21, 23). Linezolid is the first systemic antimicrobial of a new chemical class introduced into clinical medicine in the last 30 years.

Previous studies detailing the activity of linezolid against clinically significant gram-positive bacteria were performed with largely U.S. and European isolates (3, 6, 8, 16, 17, 26, 28). Those studies demonstrated, as has the present study, that linezolid activity is maintained for MRSA compared with MSSA; penicillin-susceptible, -intermediate, and -resistant S. pneumoniae; and vancomycin-susceptible and -resistant E. faecalis, E. faecium, and other enterococci. Linezolid has also been shown to retain its activity against vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (20). Previous studies reported that linezolid inhibited virtually all isolates of S. aureus at concentrations of <=8 µg/ml; coagulase-negative staphylococci at concentrations of <=4 µg/ml; streptococci, including S. pneumoniae, at concentrations of <=4 µg/ml; and enterococci, including E. faecalis and E. faecium, at concentrations of <=4 µg/ml (3, 6, 8, 16, 17, 26, 28). Linezolid has not shown cross-resistance with other antimicrobial classes in any study, as demonstrated in the present study. The present study also demonstrated, as have previous studies, narrow unimodal MIC distributions for gram-positive cocci. No differences in linezolid activity among multidrug-resistant isolates, compared with susceptible isolates, were noted by Patel et al. (17) or in the present study.

The present study demonstrated that, at the time of the national release of linezolid in 2001, linezolid-resistant isolates (14) of S. aureus, S. epidermidis, S. pneumoniae, E. faecalis, and E. faecium were not detected among the isolates collected in 16 Canadian hospitals. The lack of preexisting linezolid-resistant populations was readily apparent from the narrow MIC distributions for each gram-positive species studied. Linezolid activity was unaffected by methicillin resistance in S. aureus and S. epidermidis, penicillin resistance in S. pneumoniae, and vancomycin resistance in enterococci.


arrow
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We gratefully acknowledge the laboratories that participated in this study for contributions of isolates and supporting data. The following were the participating investigators and laboratories: P. Kibsey, Victoria General Hospital, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; J. Roy, B.C. Biomedical Laboratories, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; H. Semeniuk, Calgary Laboratory Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; D. J. Hoban, Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; M. Loeb, Hamilton Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; D. E. Low, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; A. Simor, Sunnybrook and Women's Health Sciences Centre; J. Conly, The Toronto Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; G. Evans, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; B. Toye, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; J. Dubois, Novabyss, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; K. Weiss, Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; M. Poisson, CHUM, Pavillon Hotel-Dieu de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; M. Bergeron, CHUQ, Pavillon CHUL, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada; M. Swift, Moncton Hospital, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada; and K. Forward, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. We thank David Diakun and Kate Murfitt of Focus Technologies for technical support.

This study was supported financially by Pharmacia Canada, Inc. (Mississauga, Ontario, Canada).


arrow
FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Focus Technologies, Inc., 13665 Dulles Technology Dr., Suite 200, Herndon, VA 20171-4603. Phone: (703) 480-2575. Fax: (703) 480-2670. E-mail: jkarlowsky{at}focusanswers.com. Back


arrow
REFERENCES
 
    1
  1. Cercenado, E., F. Garcia-Garrote, and E. Bouza. 2001. In vitro activity of linezolid against multiply resistant gram-positive clinical isolates. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 47:77-81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    2. 2
  2. Clemett, D., and A. Markham. 2000. Linezolid. Drugs 59:815-827.[CrossRef][Medline]
    3. 3
  3. Eliopoulos, G. M., C. B. Wennersten, H. S. Gold, and R. C. Moellering, Jr. 1996. In vitro activities of new oxazolidinone antimicrobial agents against enterococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 40:1745-1747.[Abstract]
    4. 4
  4. Gonzales, R. D., P. C. Schreckenberger, M. B. Graham, S. Kelkar, K. DenBesten, and J. P. Quinn. 2001. Infections due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium resistant to linezolid. Lancet 357:1179.[CrossRef][Medline]
    5. 5
  5. Jette, L. P., G. Delage, L. Ringuette, R. Allard, P. De Wals, F. Lamothe, V. Loo, and The Pneumococcus Study Group. 2001. Surveillance of invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae infection in the province of Quebec, Canada, from 1996 to1998: serotype distribution, antimicrobial susceptibility, and clinical characteristics. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:733-737.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    6. 6
  6. Jones, M. E., M. R. Visser, M. Klootwijk, P. Heisig, J. Verhoef, and F. J. Schmitz. 1999. Comparative activities of clinafloxacin, grepafloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin, and trovafloxacin and nonquinolones linezolid, quinupristin-dalfopristin, gentamicin, and vancomycin against clinical isolates of ciprofloxacin-resistant and -susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 43:421-423.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    7. 7
  7. Jones, R. N., D. M. Johnson, and M. E. Erwin. 1996. In vitro antimicrobial activities and spectra of U-100592 and U-100766, two novel fluorinated oxazolidinones. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 40:720-726.[Abstract]
    8. 8
  8. Kaatz, G. W., and S. M. Seo. 1996. In vitro activities of oxazolidinone compounds C100592 and U100766 against Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 40:799-801.[Abstract]
    9. 9
  9. Kloss, P., L. Xiong, D. L. Shinabarger, and A. S. Mankin. 1999. Resistance mutations in 23S rRNA identify the site of action of the protein synthesis inhibitor linezolid in the ribosomal peptidyl transferase center. J. Mol. Biol. 294:93-101.[CrossRef][Medline]
    10. 10
  10. Lin, A. H., R. W. Murray, T. J. Vidmar, and K. R. Marotti. 1997. The oxazolidinone eperezolid binds to the 50S ribosomal subunit and competes with binding of chloramphenicol and lincomycin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:2127-2131.[Abstract]
    11. 11
  11. Lowy, F. D. 1998. Staphylococcus infections. N. Engl. J. Med. 339:520-532.[Free Full Text]
    12. 12
  12. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2000. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically, fifth edition. Volume 20, number 2. M7-A5. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
    13. 13
  13. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2001. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, eleventh information supplement. Volume 21, number 1. M100-S11. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
    14. 14
  14. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2002. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, twelfth information supplement. Volume 22, number 1. M100-S12. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
    15. 15
  15. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. 2000. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System report, data summary from January 1992-April 2000, issued June 2000. Am. J. Infect. Control 28:429-448.[CrossRef][Medline]
    16. 16
  16. Noskin, G. A., F. Siddiqui, V. Stosor, D. Hacek, and L. R. Peterson. 1999. In vitro activities of linezolid against important gram-positive bacterial pathogens including vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 43:2059-2062.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    17. 17
  17. Patel, R., M. S. Rouse, K. E. Piper, and J. M. Steckelberg. 1999. In vitro activity of linezolid against vancomycin-resistant enterococci, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 34:119-122.[CrossRef][Medline]
    18. 18
  18. Prystowsky, J., F. Siddiqui, J. Chosay, D. L. Shinaberger, J. Millichap, L. R. Peterson, and G. A. Noskin. 2001. Resistance to linezolid: characterization of mutations in rRNA and comparison of their occurrences in vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 21:2154-2156.
    19. 19
  19. Roger, M., P. St-Antoine, and F. Coutlée. 2001. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci in health care facilities. N. Engl. J. Med. 345:768-769.[Free Full Text]
    20. 20
  20. Rybak, M. J., E. Hershberger, T. Moldovan, and R. G. Grucz. 2000. In vitro activities of daptomycin, vancomycin, linezolid, and quinupristin-dalfopristin against staphylococci and enterococci, including vancomycin-intermediate and -resistant strains. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 44:1062-1066.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    21. 21
  21. Sahm, D. F., J. A. Karlowsky, L. J. Kelly, I. A. Critchley, M. E. Jones, C. Thornsberry, Y. Mauriz, and J. Kahn. 2001. Need for annual surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae in the United States: 2-year longitudinal analysis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45:1037-1042.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    22. 22
  22. Shinabarger, D. L., K. R. Marotti, R. W. Murray, A. H. Lin, E. P. Melchoir, S. M. Swaney, D. S. Dunyak, W. F. Demyan, and J. M. Buysse. 1997. Mechanism of action of oxazolidinones: effects of linezolid and eperezolid on translation reactions. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:2132-2136.[Abstract]
    23. 23
  23. Simor, A. E., M. Ofner-Agostini, E. Bryce, K. Green, A. McGeer, M. Mulvey, S. Paton, and The Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program, Health Canada. 2001. The evolution of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Canadian hospitals: 5 years of national surveillance. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 165:21-26.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    24. 24
  24. Swaney, S. M., H. Aoki, M. C. Ganoza, and D. L. Shinabarger. 1998. The oxazolidinone linezolid inhibits initiation of protein synthesis in bacteria. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 42:3251-3255.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    25. 25
  25. Tsiodras, S., H. S. Gold, G. Sakoulas, G. M. Eliopoulos, C. Wennerstan, L. Venkataraman, R. C. Moellering, and M. J. Ferraro. 2001. Linezolid resistance in a clinical isolate of Staphylococcus aureus. Lancet 358:207-208.[CrossRef][Medline]
    26. 26
  26. Wise, R., J. M. Andrews, F. J. Boswell, and J. P. Ashby. 1998. The in-vitro activity of linezolid (U-100766) and tentative breakpoints. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 42:721-728.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    27. 27
  27. Xiong, L. P. Kloss, S. Douthwaite, N. M. Andersen, S. Swaney, D. L. Shinabarger, and A. S. Mankin. 2000. Oxazolidinone resistance mutations in 23S rRNA of Escherichia coli reveal the central region of domain V as the primary site of drug action. J. Bacteriol. 182:5325-5331.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    28. 28
  28. Zurenko, G. E., B. H. Yagi, R. D. Schaadt, J. W. Allison, J. O. Kilburn, S. E. Glickman, D. K. Hutchinson, M. R. Barbachyn, and S. J. Brickner. 1996. In vitro activities of U-100592 and U-100766, novel oxazolidinone antibacterial agents. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 40:839-845.[Abstract]

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, June 2002, p. 1989-1992, Vol. 46, No. 6
0066-4804/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AAC.46.6.1989-1992.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Karlowsky, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sahm, D. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Karlowsky, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sahm, D. F.

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»