AAC
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Other Versions of this Article:
AAC.01496-06v1
51/4/1491    most recent
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 Jones, R. N.
Right arrow Articles by Sheehan, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, R. N.
Right arrow Articles by Sheehan, D. J.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2007, p. 1491-1493, Vol. 51, No. 4
0066-4804/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AAC.01496-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Activity of Linezolid against 3,251 Strains of Uncommonly Isolated Gram-Positive Organisms: Report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program{triangledown}

Ronald N. Jones,1,2* Matthew G. Stilwell,1 Patricia A. Hogan,3 and Daniel J. Sheehan3

JMI Laboratories, North Liberty, Iowa,1 Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts,2 Pfizer Inc, New York, New York3

Received 28 November 2006/ Accepted 22 December 2006


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Abstract
Text
 References
 
Linezolid was tested against 32 species of uncommonly isolated gram-positive organisms (3,251 strains) by reference MIC methods and found to be highly active (MIC50 range, 0.25 to 2 µg/ml; MIC90 range, 0.25 to 2 µg/ml). Only one isolate (viridans group streptococcus; 0.03% of tested strains) was resistant to linezolid.


   TEXT
Top
 Abstract
 Text
References
 
Linezolid, the only oxazolidinone used in clinical practice, has demonstrated potent activity against gram-positive pathogens, including resistant variants such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococcal species, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and ß-hemolytic streptococci (8, 14, 15). The oxazolidinone action against these organisms has been described as bacteriostatic, and premarketing surveillance trials have shown that nearly all the indicated pathogens (>99.9%) are susceptible (2-5, 12, 15). Subsequent postmarketing resistance-monitoring studies (ZAAPS, LEADER, SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program) have discovered linezolid-resistant isolates among staphylococci, enterococci, and some viridans group streptococci species (1, 9, 13, 16). However, the rates of occurrence have remained far less than 1% but are occasionally more frequent among some species (coagulase-negative staphylococci, Enterococcus faecium), with long-term therapy (≥6 weeks), or in cases in which infection control practices are suspected to have been compromised (18, 20).

Regulatory agencies and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) have established indications for linezolid use and breakpoint interpretive criteria of ≤2 µg/ml as susceptible for streptococci or enterococci and ≤4 µg/ml for staphylococci (7). Resistance has been defined at ≥8 µg/ml for enterococci (7). These criteria are very helpful for clinical laboratories in guiding therapy for serious gram-positive infections; however, linezolid may be a treatment option for numerous nonindicated gram-positive pathogens, due to potential intolerance of other agents or frank resistance. To address this therapeutic possibility, we expanded the knowledge and spectrum of linezolid activity by studying the compound against 32 gram-positive species that were uncommonly isolated from contemporary patients with clinical infections.

The organisms were obtained from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1999-2006) from isolates cultured in North America, Latin America, and Europe (10). All strains were processed according to a central reference laboratory study design, using CLSI M7-A7 broth microdilution methods and interpretive criteria (6, 7, 11). Cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth was supplemented with 2 to 5% lysed horse blood when fastidious species were tested (6, 7). To interpret the susceptibility of the rarer species, established breakpoints for organisms of the same genus (e.g., streptococci or enterococci) were applied for comparison purposes only. All organisms for which the MIC of linezolid was ≥8 µg/ml were tested by PCR techniques for rRNA target mutations commonly associated with oxazolidinone resistance (14, 16). Also, tests with staphylococci and enterococci for which the MIC of linezolid was 4 µg/ml were repeated to establish the reproducible MICs that occurred near the published breakpoints (7). Concurrent quality control (QC) testing was performed with CLSI-recommended strains (6, 7). All QC results were within established MIC ranges (7).

A total of 3,251 organisms were analyzed, including Aerococcus spp. (22), Bacillus spp. (202; two species groups); Corynebacterium spp. (342; five species); enterococci (378; six species); Listeria monocytogenes (137); Micrococcus luteus (29); Rothia mucilaginosa (18); ß-hemolytic streptococci, not group A or B (865; three serogroups); and viridans group streptococci (1,258; 12 species) (Tables 1 and 2). All identifications were initially made at the participant sites and were confirmed at the central laboratory by conventional reference methods and commercial systems (Vitek and Vitek 2; bioMerieux, Hazelwood, MO).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Potency and spectrum of activity of linezolid against 1,128 strains of uncommonly isolated gram-positive organisms

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2. Potency and spectrum of activity of linezolid against uncommonly isolated species/serogroups of ß-hemolytic (865 strains) and viridans group streptococci (1,258 strains)

 
Table 1 shows the distribution of the MIC of linezolid for the tested strains and the MIC50 and MIC90 values for 1,128 isolates of gram-positive cocci. Among these species, the Corynebacterium spp. (unspeciated, C. amycolatum, C. jeikeium, C. pseudodiphtheriticum, and C. striatum) were most susceptible to linezolid, requiring a MIC50 of only 0.25 to 0.5 µg/ml. M. luteus and R. mucilaginosa strains were also very susceptible to linezolid (MIC50, 0.5 µg/ml), as were Aerococcus spp. and the two groupings of Bacillus spp. (MIC50, 1 µg/ml). Enterococci (not E. faecalis or E. faecium) were clearly less susceptible to linezolid (MIC50 and MIC90, 2 µg/ml), but all MIC values for enterococci were ≤4 µg/ml, i.e., not resistant by CLSI criteria (7). No linezolid-resistant isolates were detected among the species summarized in Table 1.

The reference MIC values of linezolid for all streptococcal species of uncommon occurrence in documented clinical infections have been listed in Table 2. A very uniform pattern of linezolid susceptibility was noted, with MIC50 values ranging from 0.5 to 1 µg/ml and MIC90 values from 1 to 2 µg/ml. All species or serogroups demonstrated complete (100%) susceptibility (MIC, ≤2 µg/ml) except for a single strain of Streptococcus oralis previously reported from this program (10, 16). This organism had a G2576T rRNA mutation documented by PCR sequencing analysis (14, 19).

These in vitro results for linezolid document its wide potential clinical application to uncommonly isolated gram-positive species, and the infrequency of linezolid-resistant strains among the indicated species (1-5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16) illustrates the continued clinical utility of the oxazolidinone class. However, when therapy with linezolid is considered, susceptibility tests should be performed by validated in vitro methods applying published interpretive criteria, if available (6, 7, 11). The results of such tests should be similar to those listed here for those rare species, and when MICs of linezolid of ≥8 µg/ml occur, the results should be confirmed by a reference laboratory using standardized methods (6, 7). Sahm et al. (21) recently noted discord between MIC values derived from the E-test (AB BIODISK, Solna, Sweden) and the reference broth microdilution method. Generally, the E-test MIC values of linezolid presented in this study were reliable for S. aureus testing but were consistently higher for enterococcal tests (21). Appropriate interpretations of endpoints for MIC values of linezolid require exclusion of trailing effects with the reference MICs and the application of an 80% inhibition endpoint to the hazy borders often seen with agar diffusion methods (disk diffusion and E-test) (6, 7, 17). These technical details must be considered along with acceptable concurrent QC results (7) to avoid the reporting of false linezolid resistance.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: JMI Laboratories, 345 Beaver Kreek Centre, Suite A, North Liberty, Iowa 52317. Phone: (319) 665-3370. Fax: (319) 655-3371. E-mail: ronald-jones{at}jmilabs.com Back

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 8 January 2007. Back


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Text
 References
 

  1. Anderegg, T. R., H. S. Sader, T. R. Fritsche, J. E. Ross, and R. N. Jones. 2005. Trends in linezolid susceptibility patterns: report from the 2002-2003 worldwide Zyvox Annual Appraisal of Potency and Spectrum (ZAAPS) Program. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 26:13-21.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Ballow, C. H., D. J. Biedenbach, F. Rossi, and R. N. Jones. 2002. Multicenter assessment of the linezolid spectrum and activity using the disk diffusion and E-test methods: report of the Zyvox® antimicrobial potency study in Latin America (LA-ZAPS). Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 6:100-109.[Medline]
  3. Ballow, C. H., R. N. Jones, and D. J. Biedenbach. 2002. A multicenter evaluation of linezolid antimicrobial activity in North America. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 43:75-83.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Bell, J. M., J. D. Turnidge, C. H. Ballow, and R. N. Jones. 2003. Multicentre evaluation of the in vitro activity of linezolid in the Western Pacific. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 51:339-345.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Bolmstrom, A., C. H. Ballow, A. Qwarnstrom, D. J. Biedenbach, and R. N. Jones. 2002. Multicentre assessment of linezolid antimicrobial activity and spectrum in Europe: report from the Zyvox antimicrobial potency study (ZAPS-Europe). Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 8:791-800.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2006. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. Approved standard M7-A7, 7th ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  7. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2006. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; sixteenth informational supplement. M100-S16. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  8. Diekema, D. J., and R. N. Jones. 2001. Oxazolidinone antibiotics. Lancet 358:1975-1982.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Draghi, D. C., D. J. Sheehan, P. Hogan, and D. F. Sahm. 2005. In vitro activity of linezolid against key gram-positive organisms isolated in the United States: results of the LEADER 2004 surveillance program. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:5024-5032.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Jones, R. N. 2003. Global epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance among community-acquired and nosocomial pathogens: a five-year summary from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1997-2001). Semin. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 24:121-134.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Jones, R. N., T. R. Anderegg, and D. J. Biedenbach. 2003. Validation of commercial dry-form broth microdilution panels for susceptibility testing of AZD2563, a new long-acting oxazolidinone. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 9:543-546.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Jones, R. N., C. H. Ballow, and D. J. Biedenbach. 2001. Multi-laboratory assessment of the linezolid spectrum of activity using the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method: report of the Zyvox Antimicrobial Potency Study (ZAPS) in the United States. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 40:59-66.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Jones, R. N., J. E. Ross, T. R. Fritsche, and H. S. Sader. 2006. Oxazolidinone susceptibility patterns in 2004: report from the Zyvox Annual Appraisal of Potency and Spectrum (ZAAPS) Program assessing isolates from 16 nations. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 57:279-287.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Meka, V. G., and H. S. Gold. 2004. Antimicrobial resistance to linezolid. Clin. Infect. Dis. 39:1010-1015.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Mutnick, A. H., D. J. Biedenbach, J. D. Turnidge, and R. N. Jones. 2002. Spectrum and potency evaluation of a new oxazolidinone, linezolid: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1998-2000. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 43:65-73[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Mutnick, A. H., V. Enne, and R. N. Jones. 2003. Linezolid resistance since 2001: SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Ann. Pharmacother. 37:769-774.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Poppe, S., R. Schaadt, D. Sheehan, D. Sahm, G. Zurenko, and D. Shinabarger. 2006. Abstr. 106th Gen. Meet. Am. Soc. Microbiol., abstr. A-088. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
  18. Potoski, B. A., J. Adams, L. Clarke, K. Shutt, P. K. Linden, C. Baxter, A. W. Pasculle, B. Capitano, A. Y. Peleg, D. Szabo, and D. L. Paterson. 2006. Epidemiological profile of linezolid-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci. Clin. Infect. Dis. 43:165-171.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Prystowsky, J., F. Siddiqui, J. Chosay, D. L. Shinabarger, 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. 45:2154-2156.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Rahim, S., S. K. Pillai, H. S. Gold, L. Venkataraman, K. Inglima, and R. A. Press. 2003. Linezolid-resistant, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium infection in patients without prior exposure to linezolid. Clin. Infect. Dis. 36:E146-E148.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Sahm, D. F., D. C. Draghi, R. S. Blosser, P. A. Hogan, and D. J. Sheehan. 2005. Abstr. 105th General Meeting American Society for Microbiology, abstr. C-320. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2007, p. 1491-1493, Vol. 51, No. 4
0066-4804/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AAC.01496-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Other Versions of this Article:
AAC.01496-06v1
51/4/1491    most recent
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 Jones, R. N.
Right arrow Articles by Sheehan, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, R. N.
Right arrow Articles by Sheehan, D. J.

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
J. Clin. Microbiol. ALL ASM JOURNALS