Saraiva I H, Jones R N, Erwin M, Sader H S
Laboratório Especial de Microbiologia Clínica, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina.
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 1997 Jul-Sep;43(3):217-22. doi: 10.1590/s0104-42301997000300009.
We evaluated 87 clinical VRE isolates that were selected from a previous study which analyzed 1936 clinical isolates collected and processed in 97 US medical centers in the last quarter of 1992. The isolates were identified to the species level by using the API 20S System, the Vitek gram-positive identification cards and a modified version of the conventional method proposed by Facklam and Collins. The in vitro susceptibility testing was performed by broth microdilution, E test and disk diffusion methods, following the criteria described by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS). The VRE isolates were tested against antimicrobial agents commonly used to treat enterococci infections (vancomycin, teicoplanin, ampicillin, penicillin, gentamicin and streptomycin) and against ten potential alternative drugs (chloramphenicol, doxycycline, sparfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, clinafloxacin, erythromycin, spectinomycin, trospectomycin, trimetoprim-sulfametoxazol and novobiocin).
Our results showed a high rate of resistance to ampicillin and penicillin (86%). High level resistance to gentamicin and streptomycin was demonstrated by 82% and 85% respectively. Although teicoplanin and vancomycin belong to the same antibiotic group (glycopeptide), 29% of VRE were susceptible to teicoplanin. Among the alternative drugs, trospectomycin, doxycyclin and chloramphenicol showed the highest in vitro activity, with 94%, 92% and 82% susceptibility respectively. In addition, erythromycin, trimetoprim-sulfametoxazol and ciprofloxacin showed the highest rates of resistance (98%, 83% and 69%, respectively).
The treatment options for infections caused by vancomycin-resistant enterococci seem to be very narrow since a small percentage of those isolates were susceptible to the other antimicrobial agents commonly used to treat these infections and only a few of the alternative drugs tested showed good in vitro activity. Many regimens using various antibiotic combinations have been tested against VRE, most of them with fluoroquinolones. However further studies are necessary to evaluate the clinical role of these antibiotic combinations.
1)评估耐万古霉素肠球菌对常用于治疗肠球菌感染的抗菌药物及一些替代药物的药敏模式。2)评估E试验检测肠球菌药敏的准确性。
我们评估了87株临床耐万古霉素肠球菌分离株,这些分离株选自之前一项研究,该研究分析了1992年最后一个季度在美国97家医疗中心收集和处理的1936株临床分离株。使用API 20S系统、Vitek革兰氏阳性鉴定卡以及Facklam和Collins提出的传统方法的改良版,将分离株鉴定到种水平。按照美国国家临床实验室标准委员会(NCCLS)描述的标准,通过肉汤微量稀释法、E试验和纸片扩散法进行体外药敏试验。对耐万古霉素肠球菌分离株进行了常用于治疗肠球菌感染的抗菌药物(万古霉素、替考拉宁、氨苄西林、青霉素、庆大霉素和链霉素)以及十种潜在替代药物(氯霉素、多西环素、司帕沙星、环丙沙星、克林沙星、红霉素、壮观霉素、曲古霉素、甲氧苄啶 - 磺胺甲恶唑和新生霉素)的检测。
我们的结果显示,对氨苄西林和青霉素的耐药率很高(86%)。对庆大霉素和链霉素的高水平耐药率分别为82%和85%。虽然替考拉宁和万古霉素属于同一抗生素组(糖肽类),但29%的耐万古霉素肠球菌对替考拉宁敏感。在替代药物中,曲古霉素、多西环素和氯霉素显示出最高的体外活性,药敏率分别为94%、92%和82%。此外,红霉素、甲氧苄啶 - 磺胺甲恶唑和环丙沙星显示出最高的耐药率(分别为98%、83%和69%)。
耐万古霉素肠球菌所致感染的治疗选择似乎非常有限,因为这些分离株中只有一小部分对常用于治疗这些感染的其他抗菌药物敏感,并且所检测的替代药物中只有少数显示出良好的体外活性。许多使用各种抗生素组合的方案已针对耐万古霉素肠球菌进行了测试,其中大多数含有氟喹诺酮类。然而,有必要进一步研究以评估这些抗生素组合的临床作用。