Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
424
IHMA, Inc.2122 Palmer Drive
Schaumburg, IL 60173 USACharacterization and Profiling of Multi-Drug Resistant (MDR) Enterobacteriaceae From Latin America
424 Schaumburg, IL 60173 USAPhone: +1.847.303.5003Fax: +1.847.303.5601
www.ihmainc.com
Characterization and Profiling of Multi-Drug Resistant (MDR) Enterobacteriaceae From Latin AmericaM. Renteria1, D. Sahm1, S. Bouchillon1, H. Leister-Tebbe2
1International Health Management Associates, Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA,2Pfizer Inc., Collegeville, PA, USA
• High MDR Enterobacteriaceae rates wereobserved in Latin American countries
Results SummaryResultsBackground: Enterobacteriaceae species are important pathogens responsible for a widevariety of serious infections involving the bloodstream, the lower respiratory tract, theurinary tract, and other body sites. The tendency of these organisms to develop or acquireresistance to key antimicrobials can lead to MDR strains for which the therapeutic choices
Revised AbstractFigure 4. Patient Location Distribution of MDR Enterobacteriaceae Table 2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles for
MDR Enterobacteriaceae by CountryRegion Drug %S %I %R MIC50 MIC90
Figure 1. Country Distribution of MDR Enterobacteriaceae
observed in Latin American countriesranging from 68% (Honduras) down to39% (Venezuela) (Figure 1).
• Based on % susceptibility tigecycline wasthe most active drug against MDR
resistance to key antimicrobials can lead to MDR strains for which the therapeutic choicesbecome limited. Therefore, tracking and profiling MDR strains is an important aspect ofany surveillance initiative. In this study data from The Tigecycline Evaluation SurveillanceTrial (TEST) program were analyzed to evaluate the profiles and characteristics of MDRpopulations from Latin America.Methods: Between 2008 and 2013 8,716 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae from Argentina,Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and
Region Drug %S %I %R MIC50 MIC90
Mexico Tigecycline 95 3.8 1.2 0.5 2
(1161) Amikacin 80.2 5.4 14.4 4 > 64
Meropenem 93.1 1.5 5.4 ≤ 0.06 0.5
Cefepime 53.8 9.7 36.4 8 > 32
Pip-tazo 52.5 22.4 25.1 16 > 128
Levofloxacin 29.7 2.2 68.0 > 8 > 8
Inpatient293573%
the most active drug against MDREnterobacteriaceae collected frominpatients and outpatients, and regardlessof the country of origin [Panama andArgentina being exceptions] (Tables 1 and
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, andVenezuela were locally collected, identified, and susceptibility tested (broth microdilution)according to CLSI guidelines. The data were centralized at IHMA for analysis of the MDRpopulations. MDR was defined as resistance to drugs from three or more differentantimicrobial classes.Results: Of the 8,716 Enterobacteriaceae isolates 4,012 (46%) had a MDR phenotype; ofthose MDR, 73.2% were from inpatients, 21.8% were blood isolates, 18.3% were from
Levofloxacin 29.7 2.2 68.0 > 8 > 8
Colombia Tigecycline 94.6 4.3 1.1 0.5 2
(706) Amikacin 73.8 12.6 13.6 4 64
Meropenem 80.3 3.3 16.5 ≤ 0.06 16
Cefepime 60.8 7.9 31.3 4 > 32
Pip-tazo 39.9 12.6 47.5 64 > 128Outpatient465 Other-None given Argentina being exceptions] (Tables 1 and
2).
those MDR, 73.2% were from inpatients, 21.8% were blood isolates, 18.3% were fromurinary tract specimens, 17.5% were from wounds, 16.5% were from respiratory tractspecimens, and 6.8% were from intra-abdominal infections. By species, 33.5 % of MDRwere E. coli, 28.7% were K. pneumoniae, 21% were E. cloacae, and 9.1% were S.marcescens. The individual antimicrobial profiles for all Enterobacteriaceae and the MDRpopulation were as follow:
ConclusionsAll Enterobacteriaceae (8716) MDR (4012)
Pip-tazo 39.9 12.6 47.5 64 > 128
Levofloxacin 46.9 3.8 49.3 4 > 8
Argentina Tigecycline 92.2 7.0 0.7 0.5 2
(683) Amikacin 86.5 6.4 7.0 4 32
Meropenem 95.0 0.6 4.4 ≤ 0.06 0.5
Cefepime 51.7 11.6 36.8 8 > 32
Pip-tazo 43.2 18.0 38.8 32 > 128
46512%
Other-None given61215%
• The incidence of the MDR phenotypeamong Enterobacteriaceae is high in LatinAmerica, especially among inpatientisolates.
ConclusionsAll Enterobacteriaceae (8716) MDR (4012)
Drug %S MIC50 MIC90 %S MIC50 MIC90
Tigecyclinea 96.7 0.5 2 93.4 0.5 2
Pip-tazo 74.5 4 > 128 48.8 32 > 128
Amikacin 89.8 2 32 79.1 4 64
Cefepime 77 ≤ 0.5 > 32 53 8 > 32
Ceftazidime 16.8 ≤ 8 > 32 8.1 16 > 32
Figure 2. Specimen Source Distribution of MDR Enterobacteriaceae
Pip-tazo 43.2 18.0 38.8 32 > 128
Levofloxacin 37.9 6.3 55.8 8 > 8
Guatemala Tigecycline 86.2 11.0 2.8 1 4
(355) Amikacin 80.9 4.8 14.4 4 64
Meropenem 84.2 3.7 12.1 ≤ 0.06 4
Cefepime 41.4 11.0 47.6 16 > 32
isolates.
• This phenotype was found in everycountry and from isolates from everymajor body source.
Ceftazidime 16.8 ≤ 8 > 32 8.1 16 > 32
Levofloxacin 64 0.5 > 8 33.9 8 > 8
Meropenem 95.1 ≤ 0.06 0.5 89.6 ≤ 0.06 2
aFDA breakpoints used for tigecycline
Conclusions: The MDR rate among Enterobacteriaceae is very high in Latin America,
especially among inpatient isolates. The MDR phenotype was also prevalent among
isolates from the key infection sites. Meropenem and tigecycline were the most active
Table 1. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profile for MDR Enterobacteriaceae byPatient Location
Pip-tazo 51.6 20 28.5 16 > 128
Levofloxacin 27.0 3.9 69.0 > 8 > 8
Chile Tigecycline 95.5 3.72 0.8 1 2
(242) Amikacin 66.5 7.4 26.0 8 > 64
Meropenem 90.9 4.1 5.0 ≤ 0.06 1
Cefepime 39.3 8.3 52.5 32 > 32WoundGU735
CVS87622%
IAI2747%
Others76519%
Location (n) Drug %S %I %R MIC50 MIC90
Enterobacteriaceae species are important pathogens responsible for a wide
Introduction
major body source.
• Tigecycline, amikacin, and meropenemwere the only agents with notable activityagainst the MDR phenotype
• The prevalence and critical importance of
isolates from the key infection sites. Meropenem and tigecycline were the most active
drugs against the MDR population. The critical importance of this phenotype warrants
careful and ongoing surveillance.
Cefepime 39.3 8.3 52.5 32 > 32
Pip-tazo 38.8 21.9 39.3 64 > 128
Levofloxacin 26.0 3.3 70.7 > 8 > 8
Panama Tigecycline 91.3 7.8 0.9 0.5 2
(231) Amikacin 88.7 5.63 5.6 4 32
Meropenem 97.4 0.4 2.2 ≤ 0.06 0.5
Cefepime 74.0 12.99 13.0 2 32
Wound70117%Respiratory
66117%
73518%
Location (n) Drug %S %I %R MIC50 MIC90
Inpatient Tigecycline 93.9 4.9 1.2 0.5 2
(2935) Amikacin 78.3 7.8 13.9 4 64
Meropenem 89.7 2.3 8.0 ≤ 0.06 2
Cefepime 53.1 9.8 37.1 8 > 32Enterobacteriaceae species are important pathogens responsible for a widevariety of serious infections involving the bloodstream, the lower respiratorytract, the urinary tract, and other body sites. The tendency of theseorganisms to develop or acquire resistance to key antimicrobials can lead toMDR strains for which the therapeutic choices become limited. Therefore,tracking and profiling MDR strains is an important aspect of any surveillanceinitiative. In this study data from The Tigecycline Evaluation Surveillance
• The prevalence and critical importance ofthis phenotype warrants careful andongoing surveillance, and underscoresthe need for new drugs for themanagement of infections caused by
* CVS: Cardiovascular; IAI: Intra-abdominal Infectons; GU; Genitourinary
Cefepime 74.0 12.99 13.0 2 32
Pip-tazo 62.3 19.1 18.6 8 > 128
Levofloxacin 26.0 6.06 68.0 8 > 8
Brazil Tigecycline 96.5 3.5 0 0.5 2
(229) Amikacin 76.4 10.5 13.1 4 64
Meropenem 90.8 1.3 7.9 ≤ 0.06 1
Cefepime 53.1 9.8 37.1 8 > 32
Ceftazidime 6.5 30 63.5 16 > 32
Pip-Tazo 46.1 19.1 34.8 32 > 128
Levofloxacin 35.4 4.2 60.5 8 > 8initiative. In this study data from The Tigecycline Evaluation SurveillanceTrial (TEST) program were analyzed to evaluate the profiles andcharacteristics of MDR populations from Latin America.
Materials & Methods• Between 2008 and 2013, 8,716 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae from
References and Acknowledgments:1. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. 2012. Methods for
management of infections caused byMDR Enterobacteriaceae.
Figure 3. Species Distribution of MDR Enterobacteriaceae
Meropenem 90.8 1.3 7.9 ≤ 0.06 1
Cefepime 37.6 7.9 54.6 32 > 32
Pip-tazo 45.4 10.9 43.7 32 > 128
Levofloxacin 35.4 3.5 61.1 8 > 8
Venezuela Tigecycline 95.9 2.7 1.4 0.5 2
(220) Amikacin 78.2 9.6 12.3 4 64
Meropenem 92.3 0.9 6.8 ≤ 0.06 0.5
Outpatient Tigecycline 91.8 6.2 1.9 0.5 2
(465) Amikacin 80.7 8.2 11.2 4 64
Meropenem 89.9 1.3 8.8 ≤ 0.06 2
Cefepime 56.1 11.0 32.9 8 > 32• Between 2008 and 2013, 8,716 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae from
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela were locally collected, identified, andsusceptibility tested (broth microdilution) at each participating laboratoryusing sponsor-supplied broth microdilution panels.
• Organism collection, transport, confirmation of organism identification,and development and management of a centralized database were
1. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. 2012. Methods forDilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That GrowAerobically; Approved Standards -- Ninth Edition. CLSI documentM07-A9. Wayne, PA.
2. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2014. PerformanceStandards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Twenty-FourthInformational Supplement. CLSI Document M100-S24. Wayne,
Meropenem 92.3 0.9 6.8 ≤ 0.06 0.5
Cefepime 67.7 12.3 20 4 > 32
Pip-tazo 67.3 14.1 18.6 8 > 128
Levofloxacin 35.5 4.1 60.5 8 > 8
El Salvador Tigecycline 87.6 5.7 6.7 0.5 4
(105) Amikacin 63.8 7.6 28.6 8 > 64
E. coli134333%
K. pneumoniae115329%
Ceftazidime 8.0 36.1 55.9 16 > 32
Pip-Tazo 56.1 17.6 26.2 16 > 128
Levofloxacin 28.0 3.7 68.4 > 8 > 8
None given Tigecycline 92.3 6.7 1.0 0.5 2
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the investigators,laboratory personnel, and all members of the Tigecycline
and development and management of a centralized database werecoordinated by International Health Management Associates, Inc. locatedin Schaumburg, IL, USA. The data were centralized at IHMA for analysisof the MDR populations. MDR was defined as resistance to drugs fromthree or more different antimicrobial classes.
• Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined by theClinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) recommended brothmicrodilution testing method using MicroScan (Siemens Medical
Informational Supplement. CLSI Document M100-S24. Wayne,PA.
3. Tygacil®, 2010. Federal Drug Administration, ProductInformation. Pfizer Inc., Collegeville, PA, USA.
Meropenem 71.4 6.7 21.9 ≤ 0.06 16
Cefepime 33.3 15.2 51.4 32 > 32
Pip-tazo 49.5 21.0 29.5 32 > 128
Levofloxacin 9.5 2.9 87.6 > 8 > 8
Honduras Tigecycline 92.5 7.5 0 0.5 2
(80) Amikacin 77.5 15 7.5 4 32
E. cloacae84121%S. marcescens
3669%
Others
(612) Amikacin 81.7 6.7 11.6 4 64
Meropenem 88.9 1.5 9.6 ≤ 0.06 2
Cefepime 50.2 11.0 38.9 8 > 32
Ceftazidime 15.4 29.1 55.6 16 > 32 laboratory personnel, and all members of the TigecyclineEvaluation and Surveillance Trial group. This study wassponsored by Pfizer Inc.
microdilution testing method using MicroScan (Siemens MedicalSolutions Diagnostics, West Sacramento, CA) or Sensititre (TREKDiagnostic Systems, Cleveland, OH) panels [1]. All antimicrobics weresupplied by the panel manufacturers.
• MIC interpretive criteria followed published CLSI guidelines or FDAbreakpoints where applicable [2-3].
(80) Amikacin 77.5 15 7.5 4 32
Meropenem 83.8 3.8 12.5 ≤ 0.06 4
Cefepime 46.3 10 43.8 16 > 32
Pip-tazo 56.3 16.3 27.5 16 > 128
Levofloxacin 45 6.3 48.8 4 > 8E. aerogenes1804%
K. oxytoca682%
Others612%
Ceftazidime 15.4 29.1 55.6 16 > 32
Pip-Tazo 56.2 14.4 29.4 16 > 128
Levofloxacin 31.2 2.9 65.9 > 8 > 8