Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 2008 Apr 7;52(6):2226–2227. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00414-07

In Vitro Activities of Linezolid against Clinical Isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex Isolated in Taiwan over 10 Years

Tsi-Shu Huang 1,3,4, Yung-Ching Liu 1,4,*, Cheng-Len Sy 2, Yao-Shen Chen 2,5, Hui-Zin Tu 1, Bao-Chen Chen 1
PMCID: PMC2415800  PMID: 18391030

Abstract

Significant increases in the MIC90s of linezolid in multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates were seen between the baseline period of 2001 to 2003 (0.5 μg/ml) and 2004 (2 μg/ml). The MICs were 4 μg/ml in three strains. Both fluoroquinolones (except levofloxacin) and kanamycin were found to have statistically significant degrees of concordance with linezolid.


Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the major causes of death worldwide. The global prevalence of mycobacterial infection has been estimated to be 32% (1.9 billion people), with 8 million new cases of TB diagnosed annually and an average case fatality rate of 23% (11). In the year 2003, the incidence and mortality rate of TB in Taiwan were reported at 62.38 and 5.80 per 100,000 people, respectively (2), and TB is considered a more serious public health problem in southern than in northern Taiwan.

Although TB can be cured with chemotherapy, the treatment is exceedingly lengthy and results in poor patient compliance, which is a frequent cause of selection of drug-resistant and even multidrug-resistant (MDR) Mycobacterium tuberculosis complexes. If the treatment fails as a result of drug resistance, treatment with second-line drugs is necessary. In Taiwan, the overall rates of MDR M. tuberculosis among new cases and previously treated cases ranged from 1% to 3% and 15% to 46%, respectively (5). In our previous report, increases in the MIC90s and rates of resistance to ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, and levofloxacin were noted in the MDR group (6). Therefore, there is an increasing need for new antimicrobial agents against MDR M. tuberculosis.

Linezolid, the first oxazolidinone developed and approved for clinical use, is an inhibitor of bacterial ribosomal protein synthesis. It prevents the formation of a 70S initiation complex by binding to a site on the 50S ribosomal subunit near its interface with the 30S unit. This unique mechanism of action is believed to preclude its cross-resistance to currently available agents. In addition, as linezolid is a totally synthetic antimicrobial agent, there are no preexisting specific resistance genes among gram-positive bacteria (8). Linezolid was introduced to Taiwan recently, in 2002, for treatment of gram-positive-bacterial diseases. However, in vitro activity of linezolid against Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex strains is still scarce and has not been reported to occur in Asia.

We evaluated the in vitro activities of linezolid against M. tuberculosis by using the standard agar proportion method against 199 strains isolated from 1995 to 2004. These included 88 susceptible isolates, defined as fully susceptible to the four first-line drugs (isoniazid, rifampin, streptomycin, and ethambutol); 57 MDR isolates, resistant to rifampin and isoniazid; and 54 combination isolates, defined as isolates with other combinations of resistance patterns. We also examined the correlations of MICs between linezolid and other second-line drugs.

Antibiotic preparations used in this study, obtained as pure substances from their manufacturers, included ciprofloxacin and moxifloxacin (Bayer, Wuppertal, Germany), levofloxacin (Daiichi Pharmaceutical Taiwan, Ltd.), rifabutin (Pharmacn Gruppo Pfuer, Inc.), and linezolid (Pfizer Taiwan). Kanamycin, ofloxacin, streptomycin, ethionamide, and para-aminosalicylic acid were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Sigma-Aldrich Co., St. Louis, MO).

Quality control was carried out by concomitant determination of the MICs of the same antimicrobial agents against M. tuberculosis H37Rv and an MDR M. tuberculosis clinical isolate.

Linezolid has excellent in vitro activity against all of the M. tuberculosis isolates tested, including the MDR M. tuberculosis isolates. The MICs range from <0.125 to 4 μg/ml, with both MIC50 and MIC90 as 0.5 μg/ml. The MIC against M. tuberculosis H37Rv was 0.5 μg/ml and was in agreement with the published value (7). Three strains showed MICs of 4 μg/ml. One of them was also resistant to fluoroquinolones and rifabutin. Its fluoroquinolone resistance is associated with the D94A mutation in the gyrA gene.

Richter et al. (9) claimed that they had found the first linezolid-resistant strains with MICs of 8 μg/ml, 1 dilution higher than ours. However, the MIC of strain H37Rv was 1 μg/ml, also 1 dilution higher. In addition, three strains with MICs greater than 16 μg/ml were reported by Rodriguez et al. in 2002 (10).

The MIC50 and MIC90 results are similar to previous reports (1, 10). No difference was noted in different susceptibility groups or different periods of time.

The trends in the MIC90s of linezolid in the susceptible, MDR, and combination groups during the 3-year periods are shown in Table 1. The only significant increase in MIC90 was seen for the MDR strains. This was noted between the baseline period of 2001 to 2003 and 2004 when analyzed by the Mann-Whitney test on SPSS version 12 software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) (P = 0.016). The MIC90s were 0.5 μg/ml in 2001 to 2003 and 2 μg/ml in 2004.

TABLE 1.

Trends of susceptibility of the M. tuberculosis complex to linezolid

Yr(s) of isolation No. of isolates MIC (μg/ml)
MIC50 (μg/ml)a
MIC90 (μg/ml)a
Range 50% 90% Susceptible MDR Combination Susceptible MDR Combination
1995-1997 34 ≤0.125-2 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5
1998-2000 37 ≤0.125-1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
2001-2003 44 ≤0.125-4 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
2004a 84 ≤0.125-4 0.5 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 0.5
a

Susceptible, fully susceptible to isoniazid, rifampin, streptomycin, and ethambutol; MDR, resistant to isoniazid and rifampin; Combination, other combination of resistance patterns.

All the patients with high linezolid MICs had not been previously treated with linezolid. Therefore, the trend of increasing linezolid MIC is not due to previous exposure to linezolid for treatment of other bacterial diseases in the community.

We examined the correlations of MICs with linezolid MIC as an independent variable by calculating Goodman and Kruskal's measure (4), which is a commonly used measure of ordinal association in the two-way contingency tables in the SPSS version 12.0 software program. With this measure, linezolid showed significant concordance between both fluoroquinolones (except levofloxacin) and kanamycin when the fluoroquinolone MIC was used to predict linezolid MIC, with values of 0.057 (P = 0.000), 0.054 (P < 0.05), 0.059 (P < 0.05), and 0.053 (P < 0.05) for ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and kanamycin, respectively (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Analysis of correlation of M. tuberculosis MIC with linezolid MIC as an independent variable

Antimicrobial agent MIC range Result with linezolid MIC as independent variable
Goodman and Kruskal tau P
Fluoroquinolones
    Ciprofloxacin ≤0.25->4 0.057 0.000
    Ofloxacin ≤0.25->4 0.054 0.001
    Levofloxacin ≤0.25->4 0.025 0.453
    Moxifloxacin 0.03->4 0.059 0.030
Aminoglycosides
    Streptomycin <0.25->8 0.040 0.325
    Kanamycin <0.375->48 0.053 0.027
Other drugs
    Rifabutin <0.25->32 0.051 0.123
    Ethionamide ≤1.25->80 0.046 0.112
    PASa <0.03->64 0.063 0.107
a

PAS, para-aminosalicylic acid.

It is interesting but unclear how these distinct mechanisms correlate with each other. The effect of efflux pumps remains controversial (3, 10). Future studies are needed to determine if a relation to an elevated linezolid MIC exists and to elucidate the possible mechanism involved in this process.

In the current study, we found that the MICs of linezolid were increased in MDR M. tuberculosis isolates in patients with no prior exposure to this antimicrobial agent. The correlation between fluoroquinolones (except levofloxacin) and linezolid may be relevant to the trend of increasing fluoroquinolone resistance (6). Although the increase of MIC does not confer linezolid resistance, it may act additively with another mechanism to achieve clinically significant linezolid resistance through stepwise accumulation of resistance elements and mutations. The correlation between kanamycin and linezolid has not been reported previously.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital grant VGHKS 96-071.

Footnotes

Published ahead of print on 7 April 2008.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Alcalá, L., M. J. Ruiz-Serrano, C. Pérez-Fernández Turégano, D. García De Viedma, M. Díaz-Infantes, M. Marín-Arriaza, and E. Bouza. 2003. In vitro activities of linezolid against clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis that are susceptible or resistant to first-line antituberculous drugs. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47:416-417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Centers for Disease Control. 2004. Statistics of communicable diseases and surveillance report in Taiwan area, 2003. Centers for Disease Control, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • 3.Escribano, I., J. C. Rodriguez, B. Llorca, E. Garcia-Pachon, M. Ruiz, and G. Royo. 2007. Importance of the efflux pump systems in the resistance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to fluoroquinolones and linezolid. Chemotherapy 53:397-401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hilderand, D. K., J. D. Laingand, and H. Rosenthal. 1977. Prediction analysis of cross classifications, p. 55-56. In J. Neter, W. Wasserman, and G. G. Whitmore (ed.), Applied statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
  • 5.Hsueh, P. R., Y. C. Liu, J. So, C. Y. Liu, P. C. Yang, and K. T. Luh. 2006. Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Taiwan. J. Infect. 52:77-85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Huang, T. S., C. M. Kunin, S. Shin-Jung Lee, Y. S. Chen, H. Z. Tu, and Y. C. Liu. 2005. Trends in fluoroquinolone resistance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in a Taiwanese medical centre: 1995-2003. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 56:1058-1062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ji, B., S. Lefrançois, J. Robert, A. Chauffour, C. Truffot, and V. Jarlier. 2006. In vitro and in vivo activities of rifampin, streptomycin, amikacin, moxifloxacin, R207910, linezolid, and PA-824 against Mycobacterium ulcerans. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50:1921-1926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Moellering, R. C. 2003. Linezolid: the first oxazolidinone antimicrobial. Ann. Intern. Med. 138:135-142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Richter, E., S. Rusch-Gerdes, and D. Hillemann. 2007. First linezolid-resistant clinical of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51:1534-1536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rodriguez, J. C., M. Ruiz, M. Lopez, and G. Royo. 2002. In vitro activity of moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, gatifloxacin and linezolid against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 20:464-467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.World Health Organization. 2000. Global tuberculosis control. Document no. WHO/CDS/TB/2000.275. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES