Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology IAMM  | About us |  Subscription |  e-Alerts  | Feedback |  Login   
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 Home | Ahead of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions  
Users Online: 500 Official Publication of Indian Association of Medical Microbiologists 
  Search
 
 ~ Next article
 ~ Previous article 
 ~ Table of Contents
  
 ~  Similar in PUBMED
 ~  Search Pubmed for
 ~  Search in Google Scholar for
 ~  Article in PDF (182 KB)
 ~  Citation Manager
 ~  Access Statistics
 ~  Reader Comments
 ~  Email Alert *
 ~  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
 ~  References
 ~  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3644    
    Printed138    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded566    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal

 


 
CORRESPONDENCE
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 28  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 267-268
 

High prevalence of co-expression of newer β-lactamases (ESBLs, Amp-C-β-lactamases, and metallo-β-lactamases) in gram-negative bacilli


Department of Medical Microbiology, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India

Date of Submission24-Sep-2009
Date of Acceptance05-Apr-2010
Date of Web Publication17-Jul-2010

Correspondence Address:
P Ray
Department of Medical Microbiology, PGIMER, Chandigarh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0255-0857.66479

Rights and Permissions



How to cite this article:
Chatterjee S S, Karmacharya R, Madhup S K, Gautam V, Das A, Ray P. High prevalence of co-expression of newer β-lactamases (ESBLs, Amp-C-β-lactamases, and metallo-β-lactamases) in gram-negative bacilli. Indian J Med Microbiol 2010;28:267-8

How to cite this URL:
Chatterjee S S, Karmacharya R, Madhup S K, Gautam V, Das A, Ray P. High prevalence of co-expression of newer β-lactamases (ESBLs, Amp-C-β-lactamases, and metallo-β-lactamases) in gram-negative bacilli. Indian J Med Microbiol [serial online] 2010 [cited 2019 Oct 14];28:267-8. Available from: http://www.ijmm.org/text.asp?2010/28/3/267/66479


Dear Editor,

The newer β-lactamases, including extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), Amp-C-β-lactamases, and metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs), have emerged worldwide as a cause of antimicrobial resistance in gram-negative bacteria (GNB). [1] Genes for all these three enzymes are often carried on plasmids, facilitating rapid spread between microorganisms. [1] The presence of ESBLs and Amp-C-β-lactamases in a single isolate reduces the effectiveness of the β-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combinations, while MBLs and Amp-C-β-lactamases confer resistance to carbapenems. Often these enzymes are co-expressed in the same isolate. We conducted this study to detect all three of these newer β-lactamases in GNB.

ESBL, Amp-C, and MBL production were determined in 338 GNB isolates [ Escherichia More Details coli (55), Kliebsella pneumoniae (51), Enterobacter aerogenes (50), Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex (53), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (55), Pseudomonas spp. (22), Proteus mirabilis (14), Proteus vulgaris (4), Morganella morganii (4), and Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) (30)] from invasive sites (blood, cerebrospinal fluid, sterile body fluids, pus, broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL), and tissue). ESBL production was tested by two methods: the CLSI disc potentiation test (DPT), [2] and the double-disc synergy test (DDST). [3] Five different cephalosporins [cefotaxime (30 μg), ceftazidime (30 μg), aztreonam (30 μg), cefoperazone (75 μg), and cefepime (30 μg)] were used in the CLSI DPT test. [2] DDST was performed against cefotaxime (30 μg), ceftazidime (30 μg), aztreonam (30 μg), and cefepime (30 μg) at distances of 15 mm (centre-to-centre, DDST-15), 20 mm (DDST-20), and 25 mm (DDST-25) from a clavulanic acid (10 μg) disc. [3] Detection of Amp-C-β-lactamases was done by the Amp-C disc test,[4] while MBL production was tested by three methods: EDTA-disc synergy test (EDS), [5],[6] extended-EDTA disc synergy test (e-EDS), [6] and EDTA disc potentiation test (EDPT). [5] All MBL-positive isolates were tested for substrate profiles by EDPT against meropenem and ceftazidime. All isolates were tested for in vitro susceptibility against gentamicin (10 μg), amikacin (30 μg), and ciprofloxacin (5 μμg), following CLSI guidelines. [2]

The order of sensitivity in the detection of ESBLs was: CLSI-DPT (205, 60.7%), DDST-15 (181, 53.8%), DDST-20 (111, 32.8%), and lastly DDST-25 (65, 19.2%). However, three P aeruginosa isolates were DDST-15 positive while being CLSI-DPT negative [Table 1]. The order of activity against substrates for ESBLs was: cefotaxime (88.8%), cefoperazone (86.8%), ceftazidime (85.9%), cefepime (65.9%), and aztreonam (61.5%). One hundred and seventy-two (50.9%) isolates were found to be Amp-C-β-lactamase producers [Table 1]. MBL detection using EDPT (136, 40.2%) and e-EDS (129, 38.2%) was more sensitive than EDS (108, 32%) [Table 1]. Five isolates that were negative by imipenem-EDPT gave synergy with ceftazidime alone in the e-EDS as well as in the ceftazidime-EDPT; thus, 141 (41.7%) isolates were MBL producers. Order of activity against substrates for MBLs was: imipenem (96.5%), meropenem (41.8%), and ceftazidime (36%). Interestingly, 43 (30.5%) (E coli - 18, K pneumonia - 8, E aerogenes - 8, P aeruginosa - 6, Pseudomonas spp. - 3) of the 141 MBL producers were sensitive to both imipenem and meropenem by the CLSI DDST, with zone sizes of 16-21 mm. Of the 338 isolates, 80 (23.7%) produced all three of the newer β-lactamases [Table 1]. In vitro resistance to amikacin, gentamicin, and ciprofloxacin was significantly higher (P < .05) in isolates producing all three newer β-lactamases compared to the rest (68.5%, 97.3%, and 83.6% vs 50.8%, 59.8% ,and 52.5%, respectively).

 
 ~ References Top

1.Gupta V. An update on newer beta-lactamases. Indian J Med Res 2007;126:417-27.  Back to cited text no. 1      
2.Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; 17th informational supplement, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M100-S17: Vol. 27, 17 th ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA; 2007. p. 3.  Back to cited text no. 2      
3.Paterson DL, Bonomo RA. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases: A clinical update. Clin Microbiol Rev 2005;18:657-86.  Back to cited text no. 3      
4.Black JA, Thomson KS, Buynak JD, Pitout JD. Evaluation of β-lactamase inhibitors in disk tests for detection of plasmid-mediated AmpC β-lactamases in well-characterized clinical strains of Klebsiella spp. J Clin Microbiol 2005;43:4168-71.  Back to cited text no. 4      
5.Behera B, Mathur P, Das A, Kapil A, Sharma V. An evaluation of four different phenotypic techniques for detection of metallo-β-lactamase producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa . Indian J Med Microbiol 2008;26:233-7.  Back to cited text no. 5  [PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
6.Marchiaro P, Mussi MA, Ballerini V, Pasteran F, Viale AM, Vila AJ, et al, Sensitive EDTA-based microbiological assays for detection of metallo-{beta}-lactamases in nonfermentative gram-negative bacteria. J Clin Microbiol 2005;43:5648-52.  Back to cited text no. 6      



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]

This article has been cited by
1 Clinical andin vitroevidence for the antimicrobial therapy inBurkholderia cepaciacomplex infections
Vikas Gautam,Nusrat Shafiq,Meenu Singh,Pallab Ray,Lipika Singhal,Nishant P Jaiswal,Amber Prasad,Shaunik Singh,Amit Agarwal
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy. 2015; 13(5): 629
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

2004 - Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow

Online since April 2001, new site since 1st August '04