Previous Article | Next Article 
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, June 2006, p. 2276-2277, Vol. 50, No. 6
0066-4804/06/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/AAC.00144-06
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
ß-Lactam MICs Correlate Poorly with Mutant Prevention Concentrations for Clinical Isolates of Acinetobacter spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

LETTER
To reduce the emergence of acquired bacterial resistance, an
antimutant dosing strategy using the mutant prevention concentration
(MPC) has been advocated (
7,
8). Recently, Drlica and collaborators
showed that there was a low correlation between MIC and MPC
when
Escherichia coli,
Klebsiella pneumoniae,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
Staphylococcus aureus, and
Streptococcus pneumoniae were tested
against several fluoroquinolones (
4). A poor correlation was
also found when
S. pneumoniae was tested against macrolides.
The use of MPC as a dosing threshold could also be applied to
ß-lactam agents, since the hyperproduction of AmpC
ß-lactamase, which is chromosomally encoded, is the
principal mechanism of resistance to broad-spectrum cephalosporins
among nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli such as
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and
Acinetobacter spp. This mechanism coupled with
alteration in the outer membrane protein has also been responsible
for conferring carbapenem resistance. Thus, the measurement
of the MPC could identify the ß-lactams less likely
to favor the growth of resistant subpopulations. Since
P. aeruginosa and
Acinetobacter spp. constitute important nosocomial pathogens
in Brazilian hospitals, we have evaluated the correlation between
MIC and MPC for ß-lactams and fluoroquinolones against
P. aeruginosa and
Acinetobacter spp. isolates by use of a linear
regression model (
r2). Our results are shown in Table
1. Among
Acinetobacter spp., the
r2 values were very low (

0.2) for all
antimicrobial agents tested. Against
P. aeruginosa, no correlation
between MIC and MPC was observed for cefepime and meropenem
(
r2 = 0.0). A poor correlation between MIC and MPC was also
found for imipenem and ceftazidime. Although levofloxacin (
r2 = 0.17) and gatifloxacin (
r2 = 0.25) MICs and MPCs displayed
correlations lower than that for ciprofloxacin MIC and MPC (
r2 = 0.51) against
P. aeruginosa isolates, a weak correlation between
MIC and MPC was found for all of the fluoroquinolones tested.
To determine the MIC, a low inoculum (10
4 to 10
5 CFU/ml) has
been recommended by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute
(CLSI) and other antimicrobial susceptibility committees (
1,
2). When the suggested inoculum is used, the MIC measurement
for a determined antimicrobial agent does not take into consideration
subpopulations of resistant bacteria that naturally occur. For
example, bacterial isolates possessing single mutations on the
quinolone resistance-determining region of the
gyrA or
parC gene are usually categorized as susceptible to fluoroquinolones
(
3,
5,
6,
9). However, treatment failure due to the acquisition
of additional mutations has been reported when fluoroquinolones
were prescribed for treatment of infections caused by such isolates.
Our results are in accordance with those published recently
by Drlica and collaborators (
4). Both studies confirm the poor
correlation between MIC and MPC, which is independent of the
antimicrobial agent and species evaluated. These results also
emphasize the importance of measuring the MPC to select the
most favorable dose regimen for treatment.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 1. Relationship between MIC and MPC for several antimicrobial agents against Acinetobacter spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
|

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We express our gratitude to Adriana Nicoletti and Itacy Siqueira
for their technical assistance in determining the MPC and to
Soraya S. Andrade for critically reviewing this work.
This study was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), process no. 03/12202-5.

REFERENCES
1 - Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2005. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 15th informational supplement. Approved standard M100-S15. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, Pa.
2 - Comité de l'Antibiogramme de la Société Française de Microbiologie. 2006. Communiqué 2006. [Online.] http://www.sfm.asso.fr/nouv/general.php?pa=2.
3 - Doern, G. V., S. Richter, A. Miller, N. Miller, C. Rice, K. Heilmann, and S. Beekmann. 2005. Antimicrobial resistance among Streptococcus pneumoniae in the United States: have we begun to turn the corner on resistance to certain antimicrobial classes? Clin. Infect. Dis. 41:139-148.[CrossRef][Medline]
4 - Drlica, K., X. Zhao, J. M. Blondeau, and C. Hesje. 2006. Low correlation between MIC and mutant prevention concentration. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50:403-404.[Free Full Text]
5 - Gales, A. C., K. A. Gordon, W. W. Wilke, M. A. Pfaller, and R. N. Jones. 2000. Occurrence of single-point gyrA mutations among ciprofloxacin-susceptible Escherichia coli isolates causing urinary tract infections in Latin America. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 36:61-64.[CrossRef][Medline]
6 - Li, X., X. Zhao, and K. Drlica. 2002. Selection of Streptococcus pneumoniae mutants having reduced susceptibility to levofloxacin and moxifloxacin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:522-524.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7 - Marcusson, L., S. Olofsson, P. Lindgren, O. Cars, and D. Hughes. 2005. Mutant prevention concentration of ciprofloxacin for urinary tract infection isolates of Escherichia coli. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 55:938-943.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8 - Zhao, X., and K. Drlica. 2001. Restricting the selection of antibiotic-resistant mutants: a general strategy derived from fluoroquinolone studies. Clin. Infect. Dis. 33(Suppl. 3):S147-S156.[CrossRef][Medline]
9 - Zhao, X., C. Xu, J. Domagala, and K. Drlica. 1997. DNA topoisomerase targets of the fluoroquinolones: a strategy for avoiding bacterial resistance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:13991-13996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
| | | | | |
Juliana Gugel*
Andrea dos Santos Pereira
Antônio C. C. Pignatari
Ana C. Gales
Laboratório Alerta Division of Infectious Diseases Universidade Federal de São Paulo Rua Pedro de Toledo, 6° andar São Paulo, SP, Brasil
|
| | | | | |
* Phone: 55 (11) 50846538, Fax: 55 (11) 50846538, E-mail: juliana.gugel{at}lemc.com.br |
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, June 2006, p. 2276-2277, Vol. 50, No. 6
0066-4804/06/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/AAC.00144-06
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.