Open Access

A longitudinal assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility among important pathogens collected as part of the Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial (T.E.S.T.) in France between 2004 and 2012

Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control20143:36

https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2994-3-36

Received: 14 April 2014

Accepted: 3 November 2014

Published: 1 December 2014

Abstract

Background

Clinically important Gram-positive and -negative isolates were collected from patients in France between 2004 and 2012 as a part of the Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial.

Methods

MICs were determined using methodology described by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.

Results

In total, 17,135 isolates were contributed by 29 medical centres; respiratory (25.1%) and cardiovascular (20.3%) sources predominated. High susceptibility was observed among Enterococcus spp. and Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA]) to linezolid (100%), tigecycline (≥99.8%) and vancomycin (≥94.6%). The percentage of MRSA decreased from 34.3% in 2004 to 20.0% in 2009 before increasing to 34.7% in 2012. Vancomycin, linezolid, levofloxacin and carbapenems were highly active (≥99.6%) against Streptococcus pneumoniae; 3.2% were PRSP. Escherichia coli showed peak susceptibility to the carbapenems (≥99.9%), tigecycline (99.3%) and amikacin (97.9%); significant (p < 0.01) decreases in susceptibility were observed for ampicillin, cefepime and ceftriaxone between 2004 and 2012. ESBL production among E. coli increased from 3.0% (2004) to 14.9% (2012). High susceptibility was noted among Haemophilus influenzae to levofloxacin (100%), amoxicillin-clavulanate (99.2%), carbapenems (≥98.7%) and ceftriaxone (98.5%); β-lactamase production fluctuated with no notable trend between 18.1% (2007) and 27.7% (2011). Klebsiella spp. were highly susceptible to carbapenems (≥99.6%) and amikacin (≥96.4%); significant (p < 0.01) decreases in amoxicillin-clavulanate, cefepime, ceftriaxone, levofloxacin, piperacillin-tazobactam and tigecycline susceptibility were observed among K. pneumoniae between 2004 and 2012. Only imipenem was highly active (96.5% susceptible) against Acinetobacter baumannii. Imipenem and amikacin (87.7% and 87.1% susceptible) were the most active agents against P. aeruginosa; 10.2% of isolates were categorized as multidrug resistant.

Conclusions

Carbapenems, linezolid, tigecycline and vancomycin conserved good in vitro activity against most pathogens (according to their spectrum of activity) in France between 2004 and 2012.

Keywords

France Antimicrobial resistance Antimicrobial surveillance Multidrug resistance MDR Tigecycline

Background

France is home to one of the highest rates of antibiotic consumption and antimicrobial resistance in Europe [1], and has experienced rapidly changing trends of antimicrobial resistance in recent years. The European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net) has reported significantly increasing levels of resistance in France [2], where 10.8% of Escherichia coli and 23.7% of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates were reported to be intermediate or resistant to third-generation cephalosporins in 2012 (as compared with 1.9% in 2002 and 5.1% in 2005, respectively) [3]. Several programmes have been initiated to combat these increasing levels of resistance, including measures to control transmission of resistant pathogens, to promote the use of alcohol-based hand-rub solution in hospitals, to control/prevent the spread of emerging multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms (i.e., vancomycin-resistant enterococci [VRE], carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae) and to decrease antibiotic consumption [4]. These efforts have paid at least some dividends: declining levels of antimicrobial resistance have been reported in recent years among French isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin (from 36.2% in 2005 to 23.4% in 2012) and Staphylococcus aureus to methicillin (from 33.4% in 2001 to 19.1% in 2012) [3].

Tigecycline is a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent which has been indicated for use in the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSTIs) and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIS) (and in the USA, community-acquired bacterial pneumonia) [5]. The Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial (T.E.S.T.) is a global surveillance study which commenced in 2004, with the intention of monitoring the activity of the broad-spectrum glycylcycline tigecycline and a panel of comparator agents against an array of clinically important Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. In this study, we examine the activity of tigecycline and comparators against clinically important Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens collected from community and nosocomial patients in France between 2004 and 2012. This manuscript serves as an update to Rodloff et al. [6], who described a collection of isolates from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K. collected as a part of T.E.S.T. between 2004 and 2006, as well as Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. [7], who presented data on European isolates (including France) collected between 2004 and 2007.

Methods

Between 2004 and 2012 there were 29 centres in France. The majority of these centres were university hospitals. No centres contributed in all 9 study years. Three centres contributed in 8 years, two in 7 years, four in 6 years, six in 5 years, three in 4 years, three in 3 years, five in 2 years, and three in a single year.

Bacterial isolates

Each centre was required to submit a minimum of 65 Gram-positive isolates and 135 Gram-negative isolates, including at least 25 S. aureus, 15 Enterococcus spp., 15 S. pneumoniae, 10 Streptococcus agalactiae, 25 Klebsiella spp., 25 E. coli, 25 Enterobacter spp., 20 Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 15 Acinetobacter spp., 15 H. influenzae and 10 Serratia spp. isolates. Each submitted isolate had to be considered by the contributing centre to be of clinical significance as the probable causative agent of a hospital- or community-acquired infection. All body sites were considered acceptable isolate sources for this study, including body fluid, central nervous system, cardiovascular system, gastro-intestinal, genito-urinary (no more than 25% of isolates from any centre), head, ears, eyes, nose and throat, integument, lymph, muscular, reproductive, respiratory, skeletal or medical instruments (i.e. catheters, drains, forceps, probes). No banked or stored isolates or duplicate isolates from a single patient were accepted into the T.E.S.T. study. Isolate inclusion was independent of patient age, sex, antimicrobial use and/or medical history.

All isolates were sent to a single reference laboratory, International Health Management Associates (IHMA, Schaumburg, IL), which was responsible for organism collection and transport and organism identification confirmation and development. IHMA also undertook creation and management of a centralized isolate database. Quality control (QC) checks were carried out by IHMA on approximately 10% of isolates annually.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined locally using broth microdilution methodology as described by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [8] using either MicroScan® panels (Dade Behring Inc., CA, USA) or Sensititre® plates (TREK Diagnostic Systems, West Sussex, England). The test panel for the T.E.S.T. study included amikacin (AMK), amoxicillin-clavulanate (AMC), ampicillin (AMP), cefepime (CFP), ceftazidime (CTZ), ceftriaxone (CRO), imipenem (IMP), levofloxacin (LEV), linezolid (LZD), meropenem (MER), minocycline (MIN), penicillin (PEN), piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ), tigecycline (TIG) and vancomycin (VAN). Imipenem was replaced in 2006 by meropenem due to stability issues associated with imipenem and MicroScan® panels were replaced by Sensititre® the same year. After 2006, the test panel for S. pneumoniae also included azithromycin (AZI), clarithromycin (CLA), erythromycin (ERY) and clindamycin (CLI). Clinical categorization was done using the 2013 breakpoints established by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) [9]. Data are included in the tables only when interpretive breakpoints are available.

Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) production among E. coli and Klebsiella spp. was identified by IHMA using cefotaxime (30 μg), cefotaxime-clavulanic acid (30/10 μg), ceftazidime (30 μg), and ceftazidime-clavulanic acid (30/10 μg) discs [10]. A positive ESBL result was designated by an increase of ≥5 mm in the inhibition zone on the combination disc compared with the corresponding cephalosporin disc. Discs were manufactured by Oxoid, Inc. (Ogdensburg, NY, USA); Mueller-Hinton agar was produced by Remel, Inc. (Lenexa, KS, USA). H. influenzae isolates were tested for β-lactamase production using locally preferred methodologies. Multidrug resistance was defined as resistance to three or more classes of antimicrobial agent, and only included antimicrobials with available breakpoints. For A. baumannii antimicrobials classes (and agents) included in the analysis were aminoglycosides [AMK], carbapenems [IMP or MER], and fluoroquinolones [LEV]. For P. aeruginosa antimicrobial classes (and agents) included in the analysis were aminoglycosides [AMK], β-lactams [CFP, CTZ, PTZ], carbapenems [IMP or MER], and fluoroquinolones [LEV].

Daily QC testing was performed using QC strains Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212, S. aureus ATCC 29213, S. pneumoniae ATCC 49619, E. coli ATCC 25922, P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 and H. influenzae ATCC 49247 and ATCC 49766, as appropriate. QC strains used for ESBL testing were K. pneumoniae ATCC 700603 (ESBL-positive) and E. coli ATCC 25922 (ESBL-negative), while P. aeruginosa (ATCC 27853) was used for the QC of ceftazidime and cefotaxime discs. Information on T.E.S.T. study protocols can be found online [5].

Longitudinal data were examined for statistically significant changes in susceptibility between 2004 and 2012 using the Cochran Armitage Trend Test. A positive change reflected a statistically significant decrease in susceptibility, while a negative change indicated that susceptibility had increased significantly. A p < 0.01 was used in this analysis as a cut-off value for statistical significance (a significance value of p < 0.05 was not used here as computing a high volume of statistical tests can lead to significant results purely by chance; setting a lower significance value greatly reduces the chance of this happening).

Results

Isolates were collected from 29 centres in France between 2004 and 2012 (eight in 2004, six in 2005, 12 in 2006, 16 in 2007, 21 in 2008, 20 in 2009, 15 in 2010, five in 2011 and 23 in 2012) as a part of the T.E.S.T surveillance study.

Gram-positive pathogens

Enterococcus spp

Between 2004 and 2012, 969 isolates of E. faecalis and 332 Enterococcus faecium isolates were examined as a part of the T.E.S.T. study (Table 1). Both species were highly susceptible to linezolid (both 100%), tigecycline (99.8% and 100%, respectively) and vancomycin (99.3% and 94.6%, respectively). E. faecalis were also highly susceptible to amoxicillin-clavulanate, ampicillin and imipenem (>96%), while E. faecium were not (≤25% susceptible). Decreases in E. faecalis susceptibility between 2004 and 2012 to amoxicillin-clavulanate (100% to 96.7%) and ampicillin (100% to 95.4%) were small but statistically significant (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively). Of note, vancomycin resistance was observed in 0.7% of E. faecalis isolates (increasing from 0.0% in 2004 to 1.3% in 2012) and 5.4% of E. faecium isolates (increasing from 0.0% in 2004 to 4.3% in 2012) between 2004 and 2012 in France. Linezolid and tigecycline activity were unaffected by vancomycin resistance (Table 2).
Table 1

Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC 50 , MIC 90 , MIC range [mg/L]) and antimicrobial susceptibility (%S) of clinically important Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates

Pathogen

N

MIC50

MIC90

MIC Range

%S

Gram-positive

     

E. faecalis

     

AMC

969

0.5

1

≤0.03 - ≥16

99.1

AMP

969

1

2

≤0.06 - ≥32

98.8

IMP

137

1

4

≤0.12 - 16

96.4

LZD

969

2

2

≤0.5 - 4

100

TIG

969

0.12

0.25

≤0.008 - 0.5

99.8

VAN

969

1

2

0.25 - ≥64

99.3

E. faecium

     

AMC

332

≥16

≥16

0.06 - ≥16

25.0

AMP

332

≥32

≥32

≤0.06 - ≥32

22.3

IMP

29

≥32

≥32

2 - ≥32

20.7

LZD

332

2

2

≤0.5 - 2

100

TIG

332

0.06

0.25

0.03 - 0.25

100

VAN

332

1

2

0.25 - ≥64

94.6

S. aureus

     

LEV

2229

0.25

16

≤0.06 - ≥64

71.7

LZD

2229

2

2

≤0.5 - 4

100

MIN

2229

≤0.25

0.5

≤0.25 - ≥16

93.7

PEN

2229

8

≥16

≤0.06 - ≥16

14.4

TIG

2229

0.12

0.25

≤0.008 - 0.5

100

VAN

2229

1

1

≤0.12 - 2

100

S. agalactiae

     

LEV

859

0.5

1

≤0.06 - 32

97.1

LZD

859

1

1

≤0.5 - 2

100

MIN

859

8

≥16

≤0.25 - ≥16

15.4

PEN

859

≤0.06

0.12

≤0.06 - 0.12

100

TIG

859

0.06

0.12

0.015 - 0.25

100

VAN

859

0.5

0.5

≤0.12 - 1

100

S. pneumoniae

     

AMP

990

≤0.06

2

≤0.06 - ≥32

68.2

AZI

872

0.12

≥128

≤0.03 - ≥128

56.5

CRO

990

0.06

1

≤0.03 - 16

79.1

CLA

872

0.06

≥128

≤0.015 - ≥128

57.0

CLI

872

0.06

≥128

≤0.015 - ≥128

65.0

ERY

872

0.12

≥128

≤0.015 - ≥128

56.4

IMP

120

≤0.12

0.25

≤0.12 - 0.5

100

LEV

990

1

1

≤0.06 - ≥64

99.6

LZD

990

1

1

≤0.5 - 4

99.9

MER

870

≤0.12

0.5

≤0.12 - ≥32

99.9

MIN

990

1

8

≤0.25 - ≥16

47.6

PEN

990

≤0.06

2

≤0.06 - ≥16

51.3

VAN

990

0.25

0.5

≤0.12 - 1

100

Gram-negative

     

E. aerogenes

     

AMK

561

2

8

≤0.5 - 64

95.9

CFP

561

≤0.5

2

≤0.5 - ≥64

87.0

CRO

561

0.5

32

≤0.06 - ≥128

56.7

IMP

81

0.5

1

≤0.06 - 4

97.5

LEV

561

0.06

≥16

≤0.008 - ≥16

76.5

MER

480

≤0.06

0.12

≤0.06 - 8

98.3

PTZ

561

8

64

0.25 - ≥256

59.5

TIG

561

0.5

2

0.12 - 16

87.0

E. cloacae

     

AMK

1665

1

4

≤0.5 - ≥128

96.7

CFP

1665

≤0.5

8

≤0.5 - ≥64

66.5

CRO

1665

1

≥128

≤0.06 - ≥128

50.7

IMP

226

0.5

1

≤0.06 - 8

99.1

LEV

1665

0.06

≥16

≤0.008 - ≥16

73.1

MER

1439

≤0.06

0.25

≤0.06 - ≥32

99.4

PTZ

1665

4

≥256

≤0.06 - ≥256

59.3

TGC

1665

0.5

2

0.06 - 16

85.0

E. coli

     

AMK

2284

2

4

≤0.5 - ≥128

97.9

AMC

2284

8

32

0.25 - ≥64

70.8

AMP

2284

≥64

≥64

≤0.5 - ≥64

38.4

CFP

2284

≤0.5

8

≤0.5 - ≥64

84.3

CRO

2284

≤0.06

64

≤0.06 - ≥128

84.0

IMP

324

0.25

0.5

≤0.06 - 2

100

LEV

2284

0.03

≥16

≤0.008 - ≥16

79.9

MER

1960

≤0.06

≤0.06

≤0.06 - 4

99.9

PTZ

2284

2

16

≤0.06 - ≥256

89.0

TGC

2284

0.25

0.5

≤0.008 - 2

99.3

H. influenzae

     

AMC

1191

0.5

1

≤0.12 - 16

99.2

AMP

1191

≤0.5

32

≤0.5 - ≥64

75.6

CRO

1191

≤0.06

≤0.06

≤0.06 - 4

98.5

IMP

156

0.25

0.5

≤0.06 - 4

98.7

LEV

1191

0.015

0.015

≤0.008 - 1

100

MER

1035

≤0.06

0.12

≤0.06 - 0.5

100

MIN

1191

≤0.5

1

≤0.5 - 16

90.8

K. oxytoca

     

AMK

695

1

4

≤0.5 - ≥128

98.7

AMC

695

2

32

0.25 - ≥64

79.7

CFP

695

≤0.5

2

≤0.5 - ≥64

89.2

CRO

695

≤0.06

8

≤0.06 - ≥128

83.3

IMP

102

0.25

0.5

≤0.06 - 1

100

LEV

695

0.06

1

≤0.008 - ≥16

90.5

MER

593

≤0.06

≤0.06

≤0.06 - ≥32

99.7

PTZ

695

2

≥256

≤0.06 - ≥256

83.3

TGC

695

0.25

1

0.015 - 8

95.4

K. pneumoniae

     

AMK

1524

1

4

≤0.5 - ≥128

96.4

AMC

1524

4

32

0.5 - ≥64

72.6

CFP

1524

≤0.5

32

≤0.5 - ≥64

79.4

CRO

1524

≤0.06

≥128

≤0.06 - ≥128

77.2

IMP

211

0.25

0.5

≤0.06 - 2

100

LEV

1524

0.06

8

≤0.008 - ≥16

82.2

MER

1313

≤0.06

≤0.06

≤0.06 - ≥32

99.6

PTZ

1524

2

64

0.12 - ≥256

81.3

TGC

1524

0.5

2

0.06 - 16

87.6

S. marcescens

     

AMK

895

2

4

≤0.5 - ≥128

97.1

CFP

895

≤0.5

1

≤0.5 - ≥64

94.4

CRO

895

0.25

8

≤0.06 - ≥128

80.4

IMP

118

0.5

1

≤0.06 - 4

96.6

LEV

895

0.12

2

0.015 - ≥16

87.2

MER

777

≤0.06

0.12

≤0.06 - ≥32

98.7

PTZ

895

2

16

≤0.06 - ≥256

88.7

TGC

895

1

2

0.015 - 8

80.1

A. baumannii

     

AMK

1161

4

64

≤0.5 - ≥128

75.6

IMP

170

0.5

2

≤0.06 - ≥32

96.5

LEV

1161

0.25

8

≤0.008 - ≥16

56.8

MER

991

0.5

8

≤0.06 - ≥32

83.7

P. aeruginosa

     

AMK

1780

4

16

≤0.5 - ≥128

87.1

CFP

1780

4

32

≤0.5 - ≥64

77.5

CTZ

1780

≤8

32

≤8 - ≥64

75.6

IMP

260

1

8

0.12 - ≥32

87.7

LEV

1780

1

≥16

≤0.008 - ≥16

58.3

MER

1520

0.5

8

≤0.06 - ≥32

75.4

PTZ

1780

8

≥256

0.12 - ≥256

72.5

AMK, amikacin; AMC, amoxicillin-clavulanate; AMP, ampicillin; CFP, cefepime; CTZ, ceftazidime; CRO, ceftriaxone; IMP, imipenem; LEV, levofloxacin; LZD, linezolid; MER, meropenem; MIN, minocycline; PEN, penicillin; PTZ, piperacillin-tazobactam; TIG, tigecycline; VAN, vancomycin.

Table 2

MIC 90 (mg/L), antimicrobial susceptibility (%S) and statistically significant changes in susceptibility among resistant pathogen phenotypes

Pathogen

Antimicrobial

MIC90

%S

Significancea

Gram-positive

    

E. faecium, VRE (n = 18 [0/18])

AMC

≥16

16.7

N.S.

 

AMP

≥32

16.7

N.S.

 

LZD

2

100

-

 

TIG

0.25

100

-

 

VAN

≥64

0.0

-

S. aureus, MRSA (n = 631 [77/554])

LEV

32

13.2

N.S.

 

LZD

2

100

-

 

MIN

0.5

93.5

p < 0.001 (−)

 

PEN

≥16

0.0

-

 

TIG

0.25

100

-

 

VAN

1

100

-

S. pneumoniae, PRSP (n = 32; 31b)

AMP

8

0.0

-

 

AZI

≥128

19.4

N.S.

 

CRO

2

6.3

N.S.

 

CLA

≥128

19.4

N.S.

 

CLI

≥128

32.3

p < 0.01 (−)

 

ERY

≥128

19.4

N.S.

 

LEV

2

96.9

N.S.

 

LZD

1

100

-

 

MER

1

96.9

N.S.

 

MIN

≥16

18.8

N.S.

 

PEN

4

0.0

-

 

VAN

0.5

100

-

Gram-negative

    

E. coli, ESBL (n = 275 [17/258])

AMK

8

90.5

p < 0.001 (−)

 

AMC

32

36.7

p < 0.001 (−)

 

AMP

≥64

0.0

-

 

CFP

≥64

4.7

N.S.

 

CRO

≥128

0.0

-

 

IMP

0.5

100

-

 

LEV

≥16

37.8

p < 0.01 (−)

 

MER

≤0.06

100

-

 

PTZ

64

72.4

p < 0.01 (−)

 

TIG

0.5

98.9

N.S.

H. influenzae, BL-Pos (n = 269 [32/237])

AMC

2

98.1

N.S.

 

AMP

≥64

0.4

N.S.

 

CRO

≤0.06

97.4

N.S.

 

IMP

1

100

-

 

LEV

0.015

100

-

 

MER

0.12

100

-

 

MIN

1

92.6

N.S.

K. pneumoniae, ESBL (n = 274 [19/255])

AMK

16

85.0

N.S.

 

AMC

32

16.1

N.S.

 

CFP

≥64

7.3

N.S.

 

CRO

≥128

1.8

N.S.

 

IMP

0.5

100

N.S.

 

LEV

≥16

29.6

N.S.

 

MER

0.12

98.4

-

 

PTZ

≥256

39.4

N.S.

 

TIG

2

78.1

N.S.

aA negative (−) change in significance indicates an increase in susceptibility; N.S., not significant. A cut-off of p < 0.1 was used for statistical significance testing.

Values given in square parentheses refer to the number of isolates tested against imipenem and meropenem, respectively (and, where different, ampicillin [b]).

Only seven vancomycin-resistant E. faecalis were collected during this study; data not presented.

S. aureus

All (N = 2229) S. aureus isolates were susceptible to linezolid, tigecycline and vancomycin, including MRSA isolates, while 93.7% were susceptible to minocycline (Table 1). The percentage of S. aureus identified as MRSA in France decreased from 34.3% in 2004 to 20.0% in 2009, but increased to 34.7% in 2012; the average MRSA rate over the total course of the study was 28.3% (Table 3). There was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) increase in minocycline susceptibility among MRSA over the study duration (Table 2). Methicillin resistance had no impact on the activity of linezolid, minocycline, tigecycline or vancomycin.
Table 3

Percentages of resistant phenotypes among Gram-positive and Gram—negative isolates by year, 2004–2012

Pathogen

 

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2004-12

 

N

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

Gram-positive

           

E. faecalis, VRE

969

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

1 (1.5)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

2 (1.1)

1 (0.7)

1 (3.8)

2 (1.3)

7 (0.7)

E. faecium, VRE

332

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

2 (4.9)

8 (10.8)

2 (3.3)

3 (5.5)

1 (6.7)

2 (4.3)

18 (5.4)

S. aureus, MRSA

2229

34 (34.3)

20 (31.7)

40 (30.5)

88 (29.6)

135 (28.2)

77 (20.0)

75 (26.1)

15 (23.4)

147 (34.7)

631 (28.3)

S. pneumoniae, PRSP

990

0 (0.0)

1 (3.4)

3 (4.6)

3 (2.0)

9 (4.5)

7 (4.0)

6 (4.1)

0 (0.0)

3 (2.0)

32 (3.2)

Gram-negative

           

A. baumannii, MDR

1161

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

2 (2.0)

7 (4.9)

12 (5.2)

12 (5.2)

13 (6.7)

1 (3.0)

7 (4.7)

54 (4.7)

E. coli, ESBL

2284

3 (3.0)

2 (3.7)

8 (4.6)

18 (6.5)

58 (11.8)

75 (17.5)

46 (13.9)

13 (16.9)

52 (14.9)

275 (12.0)

H. influenzae, BL-Pos

1191

13 (23.2)

6 (23.1)

17 (27.4)

30 (18.1)

53 (21.1)

56 (25.0)

36 (23.7)

13 (27.7)

45 (21.7)

269 (22.6)

K. pneumoniae, ESBL

1524

5 (7.6)

5 (9.3)

9 (10.3)

20 (12.3)

64 (18.6)

47 (16.4)

58 (24.9)

11 (22.0)

55 (23.0)

274 (18.0)

P. aeruginosa, MDR

1780

2 (2.5)

0 (0.0)

17 (11.2)

23 (10.7)

39 (10.2)

37 (11.0)

33 (12.5)

9 (14.8)

21 (8.1)

181 (10.2)

ESBL, extended-spectrum β-lactamase; BL-Pos, β-lactamase-positive; MDR, multidrug-resistant; MRSA, methicillin-resistant S. aureus; PRSP, penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae; VRE, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.

Results do not exactly match those presented by Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. [7] due to subsequent addition and deletion of isolates from the T.E.S.T. database.

S. agalactiae

S. agalactiae (N = 859) were highly susceptible to most agents on the TEST panel where breakpoints exist, the notable exception being minocycline (against which only 15.4% of isolates were susceptible) (Table 1).

S. pneumoniae

S. pneumoniae (N = 990) were highly susceptible to vancomycin (100%), linezolid (99.9%) and levofloxacin (99.6%). Imipenem and meropenem were also highly active (100% and 99.9% susceptibility, respectively), although only tested against a subset of isolates (n = 120 and n = 870) (Table 1). A MIC90 of 0.06 mg/L was reported for tigecycline (no tigecycline breakpoints are available). Statistically significant changes in susceptibility were observed between 2004 and 2012 for clindamycin (increasing from 52.3% to 67.4%; p < 0.01) and minocycline (decreasing from 55.8 to 50.3%; p < 0.01) (Additional file 1: Table S1). No penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae (PRSP) were collected in 2004 or 2011 (Table 3). The highest rate of penicillin resistance was reported in 2006 (4.6%). The PRSP rate over the 2004–2012 period in France was 3.2% (Table 3). A statistically significant (p < 0.01) increase in clindamycin susceptibility was observed among PRSP isolates (Table 2). Susceptibly to levofloxacin, linezolid, meropenem, and vancomycin were largely unaffected by penicillin resistance (Table 2). The MIC90 for tigecycline was 0.03 mg/L against penicillin-resistant isolates.

Gram-negative pathogens

Enterobacter spp

Meropenem, imipenem and amikacin were the most active agents against Enterobacter spp., with 98.3% (n = 480), 97.5% (n = 81) and 95.9% of E. aerogenes (N = 561) and 99.4% (n = 1439), 99.1% (n = 226) and 96.7% of E. cloacae (N = 1665) isolates susceptible, respectively (Table 1). E. aerogenes and E. cloacae were 87.0% and 85.0% susceptible to tigecycline, respectively. No statistically significant changes in susceptibility over time were reported for Enterobacter spp..

E. coli

E. coli (N = 2284) were highly susceptible to imipenem (100%; n = 324), meropenem (99.9%; n = 1960), tigecycline (99.3%) and amikacin (97.9%). Statistically significant decreases in susceptibility were observed to ampicillin (p < 0.001; 55.4% to 33.2%), cefepime (p < 0.0001; 97.0% to 81.7%) and ceftriaxone (p < 0.0001; 96.0% to 81.1%) between 2004 and 2012 (Additional file 1: Table S1). The percentage of ESBL-positive E. coli isolates increased from 3.0% in 2004 to 14.9% in 2012, reaching a maximum of 17.5% in 2009 (Table 3). Statistically significant increases in susceptibility were observed among ESBL-positive E. coli to amikacin (p < 0.001), amoxicillin-clavulanate (p < 0.001), levofloxacin (p < 0.01) and piperacillin-tazobactam (p < 0.01) (Table 2). Carbapenem and tigecycline activity were not impacted by ESBL production (Table 2).

H. influenzae

All isolates of H. influenzae (N = 1191) were susceptible to levofloxacin and meropenem (n = 1035); susceptibility was also high to amoxicillin-clavulanate (99.2%), imipenem (98.7%; n = 156) and ceftriaxone (98.5%). The MIC90 of tigecycline was 0.25 mg/L. The percentage of β-lactamase positive isolates did not change notably between 2004 and 2012 (Table 3). As expected, the in vitro activity of ampicillin was dramatically reduced against β-lactamase-positive H. influenzae (Table 2).

Klebsiella spp

Both K. oxytoca (N = 695) and K. pneumoniae (N = 1524) were fully susceptible to imipenem (n = 102 and 211, respectively). High levels of susceptibility were also reported for meropenem (99.7% [n = 593] and 99.6% [n = 1313], respectively) and amikacin (98.7% and 96.4%, respectively) (Table 1). Statistically significant decreases in susceptibility were observed among K. pneumoniae to amoxicillin-clavulanate (p < 0.0001; 84.8% to 69.5%), cefepime (p < 0.0001; 95.5% to 69.9%), ceftriaxone (p < 0.0001; 90.9% to 69.9%), levofloxacin (p < 0.0001; 93.9% to 77.4%), piperacillin-tazobactam (p < 0.0001; 95.5% to 82.4%) and tigecycline (p < 0.01; 93.9% to 84.9%) over the 2004–2012 interval (Additional file 1: Table S1). ESBL production among K. pneumoniae isolates increased from 7.6% in 2004 to 23.0% in 2012 (Table 3). Carbapenem activity was not impacted by ESBL production, while amikacin and tigecycline activity decreased by approximately 10% (Table 2). No statistically significant changes in susceptibility were reported for K. oxytoca.

S. marcescens

The most active antimicrobial agents in this study against S. marcescens (N = 895) were meropenem (98.7% susceptible; n = 777), amikacin (97.1% susceptible), imipenem (96.6% susceptible; n = 118) and cefepime (94.4% susceptible). No statistically significant changes in susceptibility over time were reported.

A. baumannii

The most active agent against A. baumannii (N = 1161) was imipenem (96.5% susceptible; n = 170), although data are only available up to 2007 (Table 1). No breakpoint is available for tigecycline, for which a MIC90 of 1 mg/L was recorded. Multidrug resistance was reported among 4.7% of A. baumannii isolates between 2004 and 2012, reaching a maximum of 6.7% in 2010 (Table 3).

P. aeruginosa

Imipenem (n = 260) and amikacin were the most active agents against P. aeruginosa with 87.7% and 87.1% susceptibility, respectively (Table 1). A total of 10.2% of P. aeruginosa isolates were MDR, ranging from 0.0% in 2005 to 14.8% in 2011 (Table 3).

Discussion

This report updates data previously presented by Rodloff et al. [6] for France (as well as Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K.) between 2004 and 2006 and Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. [7] for data collected between 2004 and 2007. The data described in their reports are included in the dataset described in this manuscript. Susceptibility results are difficult to compare between these two earlier reports and the current study as CLSI interpretive breakpoints were used in Rodloff et al. [6] and Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. [7] while EUCAST breakpoints have been used in the current manuscript. No vancomycin-resistant enterococci were reported in either earlier study in France; however, small percentages of vancomycin-resistant E. faecalis (0.7%) and E. faecium (5.4%) were collected in the current study. As the data show, the majority of vancomycin-resistant enterococci were collected during or after 2008 (three isolates were collected in 2006 and 2007 but were not reported by Rodloff et al. [6] and Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. [7] as they were entered into the database after the data cut-offs for these publications). Rates of MRSA were comparable between the three reports (28.3% in the current study, 28.3% in Rodloff et al. [6], and 31.5% in Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. [7]); however, the rate of penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae was lower in the current study when compared with Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. [7] (3.2% and 16.8%, respectively). No S. pneumoniae data was presented by Rodloff et al. [6]. This difference is likely due in part to the use of CLSI breakpoints by Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. (resistance breakpoint ≥2 mg/L, compared to ≥4 mg/L used by EUCAST); the removal of 236 S. pneumoniae isolates from the T.E.S.T. database whose MICs could not be verified (i.e., isolates which could not be revived for retesting or which died on transport from the contributing centre to IHMA) may have also influenced this PRSP difference.

ESBL production among E. coli and K. pneumoniae was higher in the current study; 12.0% and 18.0% compared with 4.9% and 9.5% and 5.1% and 9.8% in Rodloff et al. [6] and Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. [7], respectively. As rates of ESBLs were higher in the later years of this study (2008 onwards) this difference is not unexpected. Rates of multidrug-resistant A. baumannii and β-lactamase producing H. influenzae were similar between the current report and Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. [7]. (approximately 5% and 22%, respectively), although the definition of MDR A. baumannii in Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. [7]. also included cephalosporins. Data on multidrug-resistant A. baumannii and H. influenzae were not reported by Rodloff et al. [6]. As the isolates presented by Rodloff et al. [6] and Nørskov-Lauritsen et al. [7] are also included in this report comparisons between these three reported must be treated with some caution. However, the increases in rates of vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and ESBL-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae are cause for concern and warrant further monitoring.

One factor that could influence the difference in resistance rates between the reports is the presence of centre specific outbreaks. Outbreaks of resistant pathogens have been described in several medical centres in France in recent years, caused by carbapenemase-producing [11] or metallo-β-lactamase-producing K. pneumoniae[12], MDR A. baumannii[13], glycopeptide-intermediate S. aureus[14] and vancomycin-resistant enterococci [4, 15]. These outbreaks were controlled with infection control measures, including strict enforcement of hygiene precautions, limiting transfer of patients to other wards, isolating infected patients with dedicated staff and the closure of infected wards. These outbreaks of highly resistant pathogens reinforce the clinical importance of antimicrobial agents such as tigecycline, daptomycin, linezolid, and vancomycin, which often retain excellent in vitro activity against even highly resistant pathogens [16, 17].

As a result of a resistance control programme started in 2003 in 38 French teaching hospitals, vancomycin-resistant enterococci and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae cases were controlled while MRSA incidence declined by two thirds; however, a dramatic increase in the percentage of ESBL-positive Enterobacteriaceae was noted [4]. Similarly, a long-term study involving 933 health care facilities carried out by the French national healthcare-associated infection early-warning, investigation and surveillance network (RAISIN) led to a 43% decrease in MRSA while ESBL-positive Enterobacteriaceae increased by 182% [18]. The epidemiology of ESBL-producing pathogens can be very complex [19], and ESBL-positive Enterobacteriaceae are increasing in prevalence so rapidly that they may soon become the most widespread MDR pathogens in French hospitals [20]. ESBL levels among E. coli and K. pneumoniae increased markedly over the course of the T.E.S.T. study; however, MRSA levels in the current study decreased between 2004 (34.3%) and 2009 (20.0%) but increased from 2011 (23.4%) to 2012 (34.7%). This increase in MRSA levels was unexpected and may have been due to regional factors such as localised outbreak(s) of resistant isolates.

In a review of data collected by the Pneumococcus Surveillance Network (PSN) in France in 2007, Kempf et al. [21] reported a PRSP percentage of 6.6% among S. pneumoniae isolates collected from adults and children. This PRSP occurrence is twice that recorded in the current manuscript for France between 2004 and 2012, and three times higher than the value reported in T.E.S.T. for 2007 alone. This difference is due in part to Kempf et al. [21] using a resistance breakpoint of >1 mg/L for penicillin, compared with ≥4 mg/L used in this T.E.S.T. study. Sizeable (>20%) regional variations in the prevalence of penicillin-non-susceptible S. pneumoniae and a high number of isolates collected from children (27.9%) were also reported by Kempf et al. [21].

Tigecycline and linezolid demonstrated good activity against the Gram-positive isolates in this study. In the case of enterococci the activity of tigecycline and linezolid has also been demonstrated by others [15, 22, 23]. Bourdon et al. [15] performed susceptibility testing on 602 E. faecium and 30 E. faecalis isolates, all VRE, collected from 112 French hospitals between 2006 and 2008 and observed 100% susceptibility to tigecycline and linezolid. Similarly, Marcadé et al. [22] described seven glycopeptide-resistant E. faecium isolates from a single hospital in Paris which possessed both vanA and vanB resistance genes; all were susceptible to tigecycline and linezolid, as well as daptomycin. Bérenger et al. [23] examined 60 glycopeptide-resistant, epidemiologically unrelated clinical isolates of E. faecium collected in France between 2006 and 2008; all were susceptible to linezolid while 59 were tigecycline-susceptible (the remaining isolate had intermediate susceptibility for tigecycline).

In the current T.E.S.T. report, the levels of β-lactamase positive isolates of H. influenzae fluctuated year-on-year (between 18.1% and 27.7%) between 2004 and 2012, with no discernible pattern over time. A statistically significant decrease in the occurrence of β-lactamase-positive, ampicillin-resistant isolates among non-typeable H. influenzae was reported in France between 2001 and 2008 [24], with the rate decreasing from 35.6% in 2001–02 to 13.5% in 2007–08; however, this study only included isolates collected from patients ≤5 years in age.

Conclusions

Programmes aimed at controlling and/or reducing the prevalence of drug-resistant pathogens in France have been successful against some important pathogens, such as MRSA and VRE, but other resistant pathogens continue to increase in prevalence across the country, most notably ESBL-positive Enterobacteriaceae. These trends highlight the importance of surveillance studies such as T.E.S.T., which monitor pathogen resistance rates against key antimicrobial agents both nationally and globally. Tigecycline possesses good in vitro activity against many resistant pathogens, including ESBL producers, and thus could be a useful tool in the treatment of resistant infections in France in the future.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge and thank all T.E.S.T. investigators and laboratories for their participation in this study, as well as the staff at IHMA for their coordination of T.E.S.T. This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc.

No authors were paid for their contributions to this manuscript.

Medical writing support was provided by Dr. Rod Taylor at Micron Research Ltd, Ely, UK and was funded by Pfizer Inc. Micron Research Ltd also provided data management services which were funded by Pfizer Inc.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
CHU de Caen, Microbiologie & Centre National de Référence de la Résistance aux Antibiotiques (laboratoire associé Entérocoques et résistances particulières des bactéries à Gram positif)
(2)
Pfizer Inc
(3)
CHU de Caen, Service de Microbiologie - Niveau 3

References

  1. Dumartin C, L’Hériteau F, Péfau M, Bertrand X, Jarno P, Boussat S, Angora P, Lacavé L, Saby K, Savey A, Nguyen F, Carbonne A, Rogues AM: Antibiotic use in 530 French hospitals: results from a surveillance network at hospital and ward levels in 2007. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010, 65: 2028-2036. 10.1093/jac/dkq228.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Antimicrobial resistance surveillance in Europe 2012. Annual Report of the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net). 2013, Stockholm: ECDCGoogle Scholar
  3. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Antimicrobial resistance interactive database (EARS-Net). [http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/antimicrobial_resistance/database/Pages/database.aspx]
  4. Fournier S, Brun-Buisson C, Jarlier V: Twenty years of antimicrobial resistance control programme in a regional multi hospital institution, with focus on emerging bacteria (VRE and CPE). Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2012, 13: 1-9.Google Scholar
  5. Pfizer Inc. (Wyeth Pharmaceuticals): Tygacil® Product Insert.http://www.pfizerpro.com/hcp/tygacil,
  6. Rodloff AC, Leclercq R, Debbia EA, Cantón R, Oppenheim BA, Dowzicky MJ: Comparative analysis of antimicrobial susceptibility among organisms from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK as part of the tigecycline evaluation and surveillance trial. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008, 14: 307-314. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2007.01943.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Nørskov-Lauritsen N, Marchandin H, Dowzicky MJ: Antimicrobial susceptibility of tigecycline and comparators against bacterial isolates collected as part of the TEST study in Europe (2004–2007). Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2009, 34: 121-130. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2009.02.003.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically, Approved Standard. 8th ed. Document M7-A8. 2009, Wayne, PA: CLSIGoogle Scholar
  9. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Clinical breakpoints. [http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/]
  10. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: 23rd ed. Document M100-S23. 2013, Wayne, PA: CLSIGoogle Scholar
  11. Kassis-Chikhani N, Saliba F, Carbonne A, Neuville S, Decre D, Sengelin C, Guerin C, Gastiaburu N, Lavigne-Kriaa A, Boutelier C, Arlet G, Samuel D, Castaing D, Dussaix E, Jarlier V: Extended measures for controlling an outbreak of VIM-1 producing imipenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in a liver transplant centre in France, 2003–2004. Euro Surveill. 2010, 15:Google Scholar
  12. Carbonne A, Thiolet JM, Fournier S, Fortineau N, Kassis-Chikhani N, Boytchev I, Aggoune M, Seguier JC, Senechal H, Tavolacci MP, Coignard B, Astagneau P, Jarlier V: Control of a multi-hospital outbreak of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae type 2 in France, September to October 2009. Euro Surveill. 2010, 15:Google Scholar
  13. Ayraud-Thévenot S, Huart C, Mimoz O, Taouqi M, Laland C, Bousseau A, Castel O: Control of multi-drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii outbreaks in an intensive care unit: feasibility and economic impact of rapid unit closure. J Hosp Infect. 2012, 82: 290-292. 10.1016/j.jhin.2012.08.016.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Parer S, Lotthé A, Chardon P, Poncet R, Jean-Pierre H, Jumas-Bilak E: An outbreak of heterogeneous glycopeptide-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus related to a device source in an intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012, 33: 167-174. 10.1086/663703.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Bourdon N, Fines-Guyon M, Thiolet JM, Maugat S, Coignard B, Leclercq R, Cattoir V: Changing trends in vancomycin-resistant enterococci in French hospitals, 2001–08. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011, 66: 713-721. 10.1093/jac/dkq524.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalil AC, Klompas M, Haynatzki G, Rupp ME: Treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013, 3: e003912-PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee YT, Tsao SM, Hsueh PR: Clinical outcomes of tigecycline alone or in combination with other antimicrobial agents for the treatment of patients with healthcare-associated multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013, 32: 1211-1220. 10.1007/s10096-013-1870-4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Carbonne A, Arnaud I, Maugat S, Marty N, Dumartin C, Bertrand X, Bajolet O, Savey A, Fosse T, Eveillard M, Sénéchal H, Coignard B, Astagneau P, Jarlier V, MDRB Surveillance National Steering Group (BMR-Raisin): National multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDRB) surveillance in France through the RAISIN network: a 9 year experience. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013, 68: 954-959. 10.1093/jac/dks464.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcadé G, Brisse S, Bialek S, Marcon E, Leflon-Guibout V, Passet V, Moreau R, Nicolas-Chanoine MH: The emergence of multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae of international clones ST13, ST16, ST35, ST48 and ST101 in a teaching hospital in the Paris region. Epidemiol Infect. 2013, 141: 1705-1712. 10.1017/S0950268812002099.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Gbaguidi-Haore H, Dumartin C, L’Hériteau F, Péfau M, Hocquet D, Rogues AM, Bertrand X, ATB-RAISIN Network Steering Committee: Antibiotics involved in the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria: a nationwide multilevel study suggests differences within antibiotic classes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013, 68: 461-470. 10.1093/jac/dks406.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Kempf M, Baraduc R, Bonnabau H, Brun M, Chabanon G, Chardon H, Croizé J, Demachy MC, Donnio PY, Dupont P, Fosse T, Gibel L, Gravet A, Grignon B, Hadou T, Hamdad F, Joly-Guillou ML, Koeck JL, Maugein J, Péchinot A, Ploy MC, Raymond J, Ros A, Roussel-Delvallez M, Segonds C, Vergnaud M, Vernet-Garnier V, Lepoutre A, Gutmann L, Varon E: Epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae in France in 2007: data from the pneumococcus surveillance network. Microb Drug Resist. 2011, 17: 31-36. 10.1089/mdr.2010.0031.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Marcadé G, Micol JB, Jacquier H, Raskine L, Donay JL, Nicolas-Viaud S, Rouveau M, Ribaud P, Dombret H, Leclercq R, Cambau E: Outbreak in a haematology unit involving an unusual strain of glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcus faecium carrying both vanA and vanB genes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014, 69: 500-505. 10.1093/jac/dkt376.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Bérenger R, Bourdon N, Auzou M, Leclercq R, Cattoir V: In vitro activity of new antimicrobial agents against glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcus faecium clinical isolates from France between 2006 and 2008. Med Mal Infect. 2011, 41: 405-409. 10.1016/j.medmal.2010.12.013.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Dabernat H, Delmas C: Epidemiology and evolution of antibiotic resistance of Haemophilus influenzae in children 5 years of age or less in France, 2001–2008: a retrospective database analysis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012, 31: 2745-2753. 10.1007/s10096-012-1623-9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Cattoir and Dowzicky; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement