Abstract
Twelve clinical strains of Staphylococcus haemolyticus (eight methicillin resistant and three methicillin susceptible), isolated from blood cultures between 1982 and 1997, were investigated for teicoplanin and vancomycin susceptibility profiles. On the basis of conventional MIC tests and breakpoints, four isolates were susceptible (MICs, 1 to 8 μg/ml) and eight were resistant (MICs, 32 to 64 μg/ml) to teicoplanin while all were susceptible to vancomycin (MICs, 1 to 2 μg/ml). All four strains for which the conventional teicoplanin MICs were within the range of susceptibility expressed heterogeneous resistance to teicoplanin and homogeneous vancomycin susceptibility. Of the eight strains for which the conventional teicoplanin MICs were within the range of resistance, six expressed heterogeneous and two expressed homogeneous teicoplanin resistance while seven showed heterogeneous vancomycin resistance profiles (with subpopulations growing on 8 μg of the drug per ml at frequencies of ≥10−6 for six strains and 10−7 for one) and one demonstrated homogeneous vancomycin susceptibility. Of six bloodstream isolates of other staphylococcal species (S. aureus, S. epidermidis, and S. simulans), for all of which the conventional teicoplanin MICs were ≥4 μg/ml and the vancomycin MICs were ≤2 μg/ml, none exhibited heterogeneous susceptibility profiles for teicoplanin while three showed homogeneous and three showed heterogeneous susceptibility profiles for vancomycin (with subpopulations growing on 8 μg of the drug per ml found for only one strain). The results of this study indicate that a heterogeneous response to glycopeptides is a common feature of S. haemolyticus isolates and suggest that susceptibility to glycopeptides as determined by conventional MIC tests may not be predictive of the outcome of glycopeptide therapy.
Heterogeneous expression of resistance among staphylococci is a well-known feature of methicillin resistance and has long been a major theme of investigation in these organisms (6). More recently, experimental studies have clearly documented that glycopeptide resistance can also be expressed heterogeneously by methicillin-resistant strains of both Staphylococcus aureus (1, 13, 25) and coagulase-negative staphylococci (26–28, 30); this heterogeneous resistance has been associated with failures of vancomycin therapy (13, 25, 26). Since earlier reports, however, selection of relatively stable glycopeptide-resistant subpopulations had been suggested as a probable explanation of therapeutic failures in infections due to S. haemolyticus in patients subjected to prolonged vancomycin treatment (23, 31).
Among coagulase-negative staphylococci, resistance to glycopeptide antibiotics (usually to teicoplanin more than to vancomycin) is expressed especially by species such as S. haemolyticus and S. epidermidis (4). Glycopeptide-resistant cells of clinical and laboratory-derived strains of S. haemolyticus and S. epidermidis have been shown to differ from their glycopeptide-susceptible counterparts in several features, including ultrastructural morphology (3, 11, 20, 24), glycopeptide-binding capacity (21, 28), membrane proteins (18), cell wall synthesis and composition (5), and susceptibility to cell wall-active antibiotics and enzymes (7, 9). Reduced and heterogeneous susceptibility to teicoplanin in methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci appears to be on the increase in some hospital settings (28). The present study focused on the teicoplanin and vancomycin susceptibility profiles of 12 bloodstream isolates of S. haemolyticus and, by comparison, of six bloodstream isolates of other staphylococcal species. As regards S. haemolyticus, which was the object of our interest, it should be noted that (i) among clinical isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci, this species is second in frequency only to S. epidermidis (14); (ii) it has been found to be highly prevalent in the hospital environment and on the hands of health care workers (19); (iii) it is regarded as an important nosocomial pathogen with a tendency to develop multiple resistances (10); (iv) isolates of this species acquired glycopeptide resistance even earlier than enterococci and other staphylococcal species (2, 8, 23, 33); (v) since early studies, S. haemolyticus was suggested to be unique among coagulase-negative staphylococci in being predisposed to develop glycopeptide resistance (24); and (vi) in cultures of this staphylococcal species, often more than in those of others, glycopeptides can, under laboratory conditions, select for clones for which the glycopeptide (especially teicoplanin) MICs are increased (3, 9, 12, 22, 23, 28, 31, 32).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Bacterial strains.
The test strains used in this study are listed in Table 1. Twelve S. haemolyticus strains were independently isolated from blood cultures between 1982 and 1997 in our and other clinical laboratories serving various hospitals in the Ancona area. Six blood culture isolates of other Staphylococcus species (three of S. aureus, two of S. epidermidis, and one of S. simulans), for all of which the teicoplanin MICs were ≥4 μg/ml, were isolated between 1982 and 1998 in the same laboratories. All isolates were identified by the API test system (BioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France), and their identification was confirmed by additional laboratory tests (14).
TABLE 1.
Some relevant properties of the staphylococcal bloodstream isolates used in this study
| Strain | Staphylococcus species | Yr of isolation | MIC (μg/ml)
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teicoplanin | Vancomycin | Oxacillin | |||
| HS82 | S. haemolyticus | 1982 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| HS84 | S. haemolyticus | 1984 | 8 | 2 | 0.5 |
| HS93 | S. haemolyticus | 1993 | 2 | 1 | 64 |
| HS94 | S. haemolyticus | 1994 | 1 | 1 | 64 |
| HR89A | S. haemolyticus | 1989 | 64 | 2 | 64 |
| HR89B | S. haemolyticus | 1989 | 32 | 1 | ≥128 |
| HR91 | S. haemolyticus | 1991 | 64 | 2 | ≥128 |
| HR93 | S. haemolyticus | 1993 | 64 | 2 | ≥128 |
| HR94 | S. haemolyticus | 1994 | 32 | 2 | ≥128 |
| HR95A | S. haemolyticus | 1995 | 64 | 2 | ≥128 |
| HR95B | S. haemolyticus | 1995 | 32 | 2 | 64 |
| HR97 | S. haemolyticus | 1997 | 64 | 2 | 0.25 |
| AS95A | S. aureus | 1995 | 8 | 2 | ≥128 |
| AS95B | S. aureus | 1995 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| AS98 | S. aureus | 1998 | 4 | 2 | ≥128 |
| ES82 | S. epidermidis | 1982 | 4 | 1 | 0.25 |
| ER94 | S. epidermidis | 1994 | 32 | 2 | ≥128 |
| SS96 | S. simulans | 1996 | 4 | 1 | ≥128 |
Antibiotics.
Teicoplanin and vancomycin were obtained from Hoechst Marion Roussel, Lainate, Italy, and Eli Lilly Italia, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy, respectively. Oxacillin was purchased from Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.
MIC tests.
Teicoplanin, vancomycin, and oxacillin MICs were determined in accordance with the standard broth microdilution procedures recommended by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (17), using Mueller-Hinton II broth (BBL Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, Md.) as the test medium. Antibiotics were tested at final concentrations (prepared from serial twofold dilutions) ranging from 0.03 to 64 μg/ml. The inoculum was 5 × 105 CFU/ml. The inoculated trays were incubated at 37°C for 24 h. S. aureus ATCC 29213 was used for quality control. We used the MIC breakpoints suggested by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (17) for teicoplanin (susceptible, ≤8 μg/ml; intermediate, 16 μg/ml; resistant, ≥32 μg/ml), vancomycin (susceptible, ≤4 μg/ml; intermediate, 8 to 16 μg/ml; resistant, ≥32 μg/ml), and oxacillin (susceptible, ≤2 μg/ml; resistant, ≥4 μg/ml).
Population analysis.
Population analysis profiles (PAPs) (29) were done by plotting colony counts against teicoplanin and vancomycin concentrations. Bacteria were grown overnight in tryptic soy (TS) broth (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Mich.) at 37°C and then plated in duplicate at a series of dilutions on TS agar (Difco) containing antibiotic-free medium or twofold dilutions of the test antibiotic within the concentration range of 0.5 to 512 μg/ml. Plates were incubated at 37°C for 48 h, and the CFU were counted. The teicoplanin susceptibility profiles of S. haemolyticus isolates were also determined after overnight growth in TS broth supplemented with a subinhibitory teicoplanin concentration (one-fourth of the MIC). The lowest antibiotic concentration inhibiting 99.9% of growth (3-log10 decrease in the number of CFU) was defined as the PAP MIC (28). The homogeneity or heterogeneity of the antibiotic susceptibility phenotype was established from the appearance of the curve, homogeneity usually being characterized by a steep slope which followed an almost horizontal course at the permissive drug concentrations and heterogeneity usually being characterized by one or more inflection points.
RESULTS
Antibiotic susceptibility.
In vitro susceptibilities, in terms of the conventional MICs of teicoplanin, vancomycin, and oxacillin for the 18 bloodstream isolates studied, are reported in Table 1. Of the 12 S. haemolyticus strains, 4 were susceptible (MICs, 1 to 8 μg/ml) and 8 were resistant (MICs, 32 to 64 μg/ml) to teicoplanin while all were susceptible to vancomycin (MICs, 1 to 2 μg/ml). Of the six test strains of other Staphylococcus species (for all of which the teicoplanin MICs were ≥4 μg/ml), five were teicoplanin susceptible (MICs, 4 to 8 μg/ml) and one, an S. epidermidis isolate, was teicoplanin resistant (MIC, 32 μg/ml) while all were susceptible to vancomycin (MICs, 1 to 2 μg/ml). Oxacillin resistance was recorded in two of the four teicoplanin-susceptible and seven of the eight teicoplanin-resistant S. haemolyticus isolates, in two of the three S. aureus isolates, in one of the two S. epidermidis isolates, and in the S. simulans isolate.
PAPs of teicoplanin-susceptible S. haemolyticus isolates.
The PAPs of the four strains for which the conventional teicoplanin MICs were within the range of susceptibility are reported in Fig. 1, and the frequencies of cells growing at high glycopeptide concentrations are indicated in Table 2 (teicoplanin) and Table 3 (vancomycin).
FIG. 1.
PAPs for glycopeptides of the four S. haemolyticus isolates for which the broth microdilution MICs of teicoplanin were in the range of susceptibility (≤8 μg/ml) (17). After overnight growth in TS broth, bacteria were plated on TS agar containing the indicated concentrations of teicoplanin (■) or vancomycin (●). Population analysis for teicoplanin was also done after overnight growth in TS broth containing a subinhibitory concentration of teicoplanin (□).
TABLE 2.
Teicoplanin susceptibility, as evaluated by the BMD method and PAPs, and frequency of resistant subpopulations in 18 staphylococcal bloodstream isolates
| Strain | Teicoplanin susceptibility (MIC, μg/ml)
|
Frequencya of cells growing in the presence of a teicoplanin concn (μg/ml) of:
|
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMD | PAP | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 | |
| S. haemolyticus | |||||||
| HS82 | 4 | 4 | 10−5 | 10−5 | —b | — | — |
| HS84 | 8 | 4 | 10−4 | 10−4 | 10−8 | — | — |
| HS93 | 2 | 8 | 10−4 | 10−5 | — | — | — |
| HS94 | 1 | 4 | 10−4 | 10−5 | — | — | — |
| HR89A | 64 | 64 | 10−1 | 10−1 | 10−4 | — | — |
| HR89B | 32 | 16 | 10−2 | 10−3 | 10−5 | 10−6 | — |
| HR91 | 64 | 64 | 10−1 | 10−1 | 10−5 | — | — |
| HR93 | 64 | 32 | 10−3 | 10−4 | 10−5 | — | — |
| HR94 | 32 | 16 | 10−2 | 10−4 | 10−5 | — | — |
| HR95A | 64 | 32 | 10−2 | 10−3 | 10−5 | — | — |
| HR95B | 32 | 32 | 10−2 | 10−4 | 10−5 | 10−6 | — |
| HR97 | 64 | 32 | 10−2 | 10−4 | 10−5 | 10−6 | 10−6 |
| S. aureus | |||||||
| AS95A | 8 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — |
| AS95B | 4 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — |
| AS98 | 4 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — |
| S. epidermidis | |||||||
| ES82 | 4 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — |
| ER94 | 32 | 32 | 10−1 | 10−6 | — | — | — |
| S. simulans SS96 | 4 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — |
Frequencies were approximated to the nearest whole power of 10.
—, no growth.
TABLE 3.
Vancomycin susceptibility, as evaluated by the BMD method and PAPs, and frequency of resistant subpopulations in 18 staphylococcal bloodstream isolates
| Strain | Vancomycin susceptibility (MIC, μg/ml)
|
Frequencya of cells growing in the presence of a vancomycin concn (μg/ml) of:
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMD | PAP | 8 | 16 | |
| S. haemolyticus | ||||
| HS82 | 1 | 1 | —b | — |
| HS84 | 2 | 2 | — | — |
| HS93 | 1 | 1 | — | — |
| HS94 | 1 | 1 | — | — |
| HR89A | 2 | 4 | 10−5 | — |
| HR89B | 2 | 4 | 10−5 | — |
| HR91 | 2 | 2 | 10−7 | — |
| HR93 | 2 | 4 | 10−5 | 10−7 |
| HR94 | 2 | 4 | 10−6 | 10−7 |
| HR95A | 2 | 4 | — | — |
| HR95B | 2 | 4 | 10−5 | — |
| HR97 | 2 | 4 | 10−6 | — |
| S. aureus | ||||
| AS95A | 2 | 4 | — | — |
| AS95B | 2 | 4 | — | — |
| AS98 | 2 | 4 | — | — |
| S. epidermidis | ||||
| ES82 | 1 | 2 | — | — |
| ER94 | 2 | 4 | 10−8 | — |
| S. simulans SS96 | 1 | 1 | — | — |
Frequencies were approximated to the nearest whole power of 10.
—, no growth.
All four strains expressed heterogeneous teicoplanin resistance, as shown by the inflections in their curves. Their course was distinctly different from the more homogeneous curves yielded after growth in the presence of subinhibitory teicoplanin concentrations, suggesting the presence of cell populations with different drug susceptibilities. Cells capable of growing on agar plates containing 16 μg of teicoplanin per ml were present in all four strains at frequencies of ≥10−5 and at higher frequencies (up to 3 logs more in strain HS82) in the case of growth in TS broth with subinhibitory teicoplanin concentrations. Strain HS84 contained the most highly teicoplanin-resistant subpopulation, which grew on 64 μg of the antibiotic per ml at a frequency of 10−8.
All of the same four S. haemolyticus isolates showed homogeneous phenotypes with respect to susceptibility to vancomycin. Steep slopes in their PAPs denoted the presence of one cell population with rather uniform vancomycin susceptibility, all cells being capable of growing below, but virtually none being capable of growing above, vancomycin concentrations of 2 to 4 μg/ml.
PAPs of teicoplanin-resistant S. haemolyticus isolates.
The PAPs of the eight strains for which the conventional teicoplanin MICs were within the range of resistance are reported in Fig. 2, and the frequencies of cells growing at high glycopeptide concentrations are indicated in Table 2 (teicoplanin) and Table 3 (vancomycin).
FIG. 2.
PAPs of the eight S. haemolyticus isolates for which the broth microdilution MICs of teicoplanin were in the range of resistance (≥32 μg/ml) (17). After overnight growth in TS broth, bacteria were plated on TS agar containing the indicated concentrations of teicoplanin (■) or vancomycin (●). Population analysis for teicoplanin was also done after overnight growth in TS broth containing a subinhibitory concentration of teicoplanin (□).
Six strains (HR89B, HR93, HR94, HR95A, HR95B, and HR97) expressed heterogeneous teicoplanin resistance, and two (HR89A and HR91) expressed homogeneous teicoplanin resistance. The heterogeneously resistant strains contained subpopulations capable of growing on 16 μg of teicoplanin per ml at frequencies of 10−2 to 10−3 and on 64 μg/ml at a frequency of 10−5. Strain HR97 contained the most highly teicoplanin-resistant subpopulation, which grew on 256 μg of the antibiotic per ml at a frequency of 10−6. In contrast, the two homogeneously resistant strains, which yielded almost overlapping curves after growth without and with subinhibitory teicoplanin concentrations, showed a less-than-1-log decrease in cell number up to a teicoplanin concentration of 32 μg/ml while no growth was observed in plates containing 128 μg of the antibiotic per ml.
With respect to susceptibility to vancomycin, six (HR89A, HR89B, HR93, HR94, HR95B, and HR97) of the eight S. haemolyticus isolates resistant to teicoplanin and susceptible to vancomycin on the basis of conventional MIC tests showed heterogeneous resistance with subpopulations growing on 8 μg of vancomycin per ml at frequencies of ≥10−6. Of the remaining two strains, one (HR91) showed a heterogeneous profile with cells growing on 8 μg of vancomycin per ml but at a lower frequency (10−7) and one (HR95A) demonstrated homogeneous susceptibility and contained no cells capable of growing on 8 μg of vancomycin per ml.
Comparison of conventional MICs and PAP data.
To evaluate possible correlations between resistant subpopulations and MICs in each of our S. haemolyticus strains, we compared the teicoplanin and vancomycin MICs obtained by the standard broth microdilution (BMD) method as recommended by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (17) (BMD MICs) with the antibiotic concentrations inhibiting the growth of the majority of cells as derived from PAPs (PAP MICs) and correlated MIC data with the frequency of highly resistant subpopulations.
As regards susceptibility to teicoplanin (Table 2), of the four S. haemolyticus isolates for which the conventional teicoplanin MICs were within the range of susceptibility, for two (HS93 and HS94) the PAP MICs (8 and 4 μg/ml, respectively) were four times higher than the BMD MICs (2 and 1 μg/ml, respectively). The opposite, with the teicoplanin PAP MIC (4 μg/ml) one-half of the BMD MIC (8 μg/ml), was true of strain HS84, while the same value (4 μg/ml) of both the BMD and PAP MICs was recorded for strain HS82. In the eight S. haemolyticus strains for which the conventional teicoplanin MICs were within the range of resistance, the PAP MICs were identical to or half of the BMD MICs.
As regards susceptibility to vancomycin (Table 3), identical BMD and PAP MICs (1 to 2 μg/ml) were recorded for the four strains for which the conventional teicoplanin MICs were in the range of susceptibility and for one (HR91) of the eight strains for which the conventional teicoplanin MICs were in the range of resistance. For the remaining seven strains, the PAP MIC (4 μg/ml) was twice the BMD MIC (2 μg/ml).
PAPs of strains of other staphylococcal species.
None of the six bloodstream isolates of other Staphylococcus species exhibited heterogeneous teicoplanin susceptibility profiles. As regards vancomycin, three strains (AS95A, AS95B, and SS96) demonstrated homogeneous susceptibility while the three other strains showed curves with inflection points, but cells growing on 8 μg of vancomycin per ml were not found (AS98 and ES82) or were present at a frequency as low as 10−8 (ER94) (Table 3). For all six strains, the PAP MICs of both teicoplanin and vancomycin were identical to or twice the BMD MICs (Tables 2 and 3).
DISCUSSION
Our results suggest that heterogeneous expression of teicoplanin resistance is prevalent among S. haemolyticus strains and may be associated with heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin. All test strains of this species for which the conventional teicoplanin MICs were within the range of susceptibility and the majority of those for which the conventional MICs were within the range of resistance showed heterogeneous teicoplanin phenotypes. On the other hand, while all isolates were susceptible to vancomycin on the basis of conventional MIC tests and breakpoints, population analysis indicated homogeneous susceptibility to the antibiotic in all four S. haemolyticus strains conventionally susceptible to teicoplanin but in only one of the eight strains conventionally resistant to teicoplanin. The seven other strains of the latter group showed heterogeneous vancomycin profiles: all contained subpopulations growing on 8 μg of vancomycin per ml, and two also contained subpopulations that grew on 16 μg/ml. Overall, our results are in agreement with those reported by Sieradzki et al. (26–28), who, however, found heterogeneous phenotypes for teicoplanin in clinical isolates not only of S. haemolyticus (28) but also of S. epidermidis (26–28) and S. hominis (28) and identified heterogeneous phenotypes for vancomycin also in isolates for which the conventional MICs of teicoplanin were within the range of susceptibility (27). It is worth noting, however, that heterogeneous phenotypes for teicoplanin, but not for vancomycin, have been identified in some “historical” isolates of S. epidermidis and S. haemolyticus collected between 1925 and 1964 (28).
Heterogeneous expression of glycopeptide resistance has recently been reported in clinical S. aureus isolates with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides (1, 13, 25). In particular, heterogeneous resistance to vancomycin was defined by Hiramatsu et al. (13) as that observed in strains for which the conventional vancomycin MICs are ≤4 μg/ml but that generate subpopulations capable of growing in plates containing ≥8 μg of vancomycin per ml at a frequency of ≥10−6. This definition applies to six of our seven S. haemolyticus isolates with heterogeneous vancomycin profiles, all of which contained subpopulations growing on 8 μg of vancomycin per ml at frequencies of 10−5 to 10−6; the seventh strain contained a subpopulation that grew on 8 μg of vancomycin per ml but at a frequency of only 10−7.
It is noteworthy that the clinical staphylococci with heterogeneous glycopeptide resistance profiles reported thus far (1, 13, 15, 25–28, 34) were all methicillin resistant, whereas 3 (2 teicoplanin susceptible and 1 teicoplanin resistant on the basis of conventional MICs) of our 12 S. haemolyticus isolates were methicillin susceptible with homogeneous oxacillin susceptibility profiles (data not shown). The fact that these three methicillin-susceptible strains were fully comparable to the methicillin-resistant strains in their heterogeneous teicoplanin resistance, with one (HR97) even heterogeneously resistant to vancomycin, does not support the hypothesis, advanced for S. aureus strains (15, 16), of a possible relationship between heteroresistance to glycopeptides and heteroresistance to methicillin. On the other hand, the levels of resistance to glycopeptides and β-lactams often denote a reverse relationship (7, 9).
Resistant subpopulations selected during glycopeptide therapy have been thought to be responsible for therapeutic failures in patients infected by S. aureus (13, 25), S. epidermidis (26), or S. haemolyticus (23, 31) strains initially demonstrating glycopeptide susceptibility by conventional MIC tests but showing heterogeneous resistance on population analysis. We have little information about antibiotic treatments and outcomes for our S. haemolyticus bloodstream isolates. However, in all of these strains, including those demonstrating conventional susceptibility to teicoplanin, growth in the presence of a subinhibitory teicoplanin concentration clearly selected glycopeptide-resistant subpopulations. A propensity for such a selection appears to be a species-related feature of S. haemolyticus strains. Further studies should address the issue of the stability of the selected subpopulations, as we often noted a reversion toward the original population distribution after growth in the absence of the selecting drug (data not shown). In conclusion, susceptibility to glycopeptides as determined by standard dilution methods is unlikely to represent a reliable basis for glycopeptide treatment of S. haemolyticus infections. But PAP MICs, in the absence of a careful evaluation of population profiles, may also correlate poorly with the presence of glycopeptide-resistant subpopulations of S. haemolyticus strains.
REFERENCES
- 1.Aeschlimann J R, Hershberger E, Rybak M J. Analysis of vancomycin population susceptibility profiles, killing activity, and postantibiotic effect against vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43:1914–1918. doi: 10.1128/aac.43.8.1914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Arioli V, Pallanza R. Teicoplanin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci. Lancet. 1987;i:39. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(87)90724-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Biavasco F, Giovanetti E, Montanari M P, Lupidi R, Varaldo P E. Development of in-vitro resistance to glycopeptide antibiotics: assessment in staphylococci of different species. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1991;27:71–79. doi: 10.1093/jac/27.1.71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Biavasco F, Vignaroli C, Varaldo P E. Glycopeptide resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000;19:403–417. doi: 10.1007/s100960000299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Billot-Klein D, Gutmann L, Bryant D, Bell D, van Heijenoort J, Grewal J, Shlaes D M. Peptidoglycan synthesis and structure in Staphylococcus haemolyticus expressing increasing levels of resistance to glycopeptide antibiotics. J Bacteriol. 1996;178:4696–4703. doi: 10.1128/jb.178.15.4696-4703.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Chambers H F. Methicillin resistance in staphylococci: molecular and biochemical basis and clinical implications. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1997;10:781–791. doi: 10.1128/cmr.10.4.781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Climo M W, Patron R L, Archer G L. Combinations of vancomycin and β-lactams are synergistic against staphylococci with reduced susceptibilities to vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43:1747–1753. doi: 10.1128/aac.43.7.1747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Del Bene V E, John J F, Jr, Twitty J A, Lewis J W. Antistaphylococcal activity of teicoplanin, vancomycin, and other antimicrobial agents: the significance of methicillin resistance. J Infect Dis. 1986;154:349–352. doi: 10.1093/infdis/154.2.349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Domaracki B E, Evans A, Preston K E, Fraimow H, Venezia R A. Increased oxacillin activity associated with glycopeptides in coagulase-negative staphylococci. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1998;17:143–150. doi: 10.1007/BF01691109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Froggatt J W, Johnston J L, Galetto D W, Archer G L. Antimicrobial resistance in nosocomial isolates of Staphylococcus haemolyticus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1989;33:460–466. doi: 10.1128/aac.33.4.460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Giovanetti E, Biavasco F, Pugnaloni A, Lupidi R, Biagini G, Varaldo P E. An electron microscopic study of clinical and laboratory-derived strains of teicoplanin-resistant Staphylococcus haemolyticus. Microb Drug Resist. 1996;2:239–243. doi: 10.1089/mdr.1996.2.239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Herwaldt L, Boyken L, Pfaller M. In vitro selection of resistance to vancomycin in bloodstream isolates of Staphylococcus haemolyticus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1991;10:1007–1012. doi: 10.1007/BF01984921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hiramatsu K, Aritaka N, Hanaki H, Kawasaki S, Hosoda Y, Hori S, Fukuchi Y, Kobayashi I. Dissemination in Japanese hospitals of strains of Staphylococcus aureus heterogeneously resistant to vancomycin. Lancet. 1997;350:1670–1673. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)07324-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kloos W E, Bannerman T L. Staphylococcus and Micrococcus. In: Murray P R, Baron E J, Pfaller M A, Tenover F C, Yolken R H, editors. Manual of clinical microbiology. 6th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Microbiology; 1995. pp. 282–298. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Marchese A, Balistreri G, Tonoli E, Debbia E, Schito G C. Heterogeneous vancomycin resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated in a large Italian hospital. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:866–869. doi: 10.1128/jcm.38.2.866-869.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Moellering R C., Jr Staphylococci vs. glycopeptides—how much are the battle lines changing? Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29:768–770. doi: 10.1086/520430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically—fourth edition. Approved standard M7-A4. Wayne, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 18.O'Hare M D, Reynolds P E. Novel membrane proteins present in teicoplanin-resistant, vancomycin-sensitive, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1992;30:753–768. doi: 10.1093/jac/30.6.753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Perdreau-Remington F, Stefanik D, Peters G, Ruckdeschel G, Wenzel R, Pulverer G. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus haemolyticus on the hands of health care workers: a route of transmission or a source? J Hosp Infect. 1995;31:195–203. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(95)90066-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sanyal D, Greenwood D. An electronmicroscopic study of glycopeptide antibiotic-resistant strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Med Microbiol. 1993;39:204–210. doi: 10.1099/00222615-39-3-204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Sanyal D, Johnson A P, George R C, Edwards R, Greenwood D. In-vitro characteristics of glycopeptide resistant strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis isolated from patients on CAPD. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993;32:267–278. doi: 10.1093/jac/32.2.267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Schwalbe R S, Ritz W J, Verma P R, Barranco E A, Gilligan P H. Selection for vancomycin resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus haemolyticus. J Infect Dis. 1990;161:45–51. doi: 10.1093/infdis/161.1.45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Schwalbe R S, Stapleton J T, Gilligan P H. Emergence of vancomycin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:927–931. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198704093161507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Schwalbe R S, Stapleton J T, Gilligan P H. Vancomycin-resistant staphylococcus. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:766–768. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198709173171212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sieradzki K, Roberts R B, Haber S W, Tomasz A. The development of vancomycin resistance in a patient with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:517–523. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199902183400704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Sieradzki K, Roberts R B, Serur D, Hargrave J, Tomasz A. Recurrent peritonitis in a patient on dialysis and prophylactic vancomycin. Lancet. 1998;351:880–881. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)70291-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Sieradzki K, Roberts R B, Serur D, Hargrave J, Tomasz A. Heterogeneously vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis strain causing recurrent peritonitis in a dialysis patient during vancomycin therapy. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37:39–44. doi: 10.1128/jcm.37.1.39-44.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Sieradzki K, Villari P, Tomasz A. Decreased susceptibilities to teicoplanin and vancomycin among coagulase-negative methicillin-resistant clinical isolates of staphylococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998;42:100–107. doi: 10.1128/aac.42.1.100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Tomasz A, Nachman S, Leaf H. Stable classes of phenotypic expression in methicillin-resistant clinical isolates of staphylococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991;35:124–129. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.1.124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.van den Braak H A, van Belkum A, te Witt R, Verbrugh H A, Endz H P. Glycopeptide resistance amongst Staphylococcus spp. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1998;42:673–675. doi: 10.1093/jac/42.5.673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Veach L A, Pfaller M A, Barrett M, Koontz F P, Wenzel R P. Vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus haemolyticus causing colonization and bloodstream infection. J Clin Microbiol. 1990;28:2064–2068. doi: 10.1128/jcm.28.9.2064-2068.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Watanakunakorn C. In-vitro induction of resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci to vancomycin and teicoplanin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988;22:321–324. doi: 10.1093/jac/22.3.321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Wilson A P R, O'Hare M D, Felmingham D, Grüneberg R N. Teicoplanin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococcus. Lancet. 1986;ii:973. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90622-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Wong S S Y, Ho P L, Woo P C Y, Yuen K Y. Bacteremia caused by staphylococci with inducible vancomycin heteroresistance. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29:760–767. doi: 10.1086/520429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]