Skip to main content
Iranian Journal of Microbiology logoLink to Iranian Journal of Microbiology
. 2012 Jun;4(2):82–86.

Inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolates recovered from Mashhad, Iran

N Seifi 1, N Kahani 1, E Askari 1, S Mahdipour 1, Nasab M Naderi 2,*
PMCID: PMC3434646  PMID: 22973474

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Staphylococcus aureus is an important agent in hospital and community-associated infections, causing high morbidity and mortality. Introduction of the new antimicrobial classes for this pathogen has been usually followed by the emergence of resistant strains through multiple mechanisms. For instance, resistance to clindamycin (CLI)can be constitutive or inducible. Inducible clindamycin resistance which may lead to treatment failure can simply be identified by performing D-test. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of inducible clindamycin resistance among Staphylococcus aureus isolates by D-test method.

Materials and Methods

This was a cross-sectional study conducted on 211 non-duplicated S. aureus isolates in Imam Reza hospital of Mashhad during 2010. Susceptibility to oxacillin, cefoxitin, erythromycin and clindamycin was performed by agar disk diffusion method according to CLSI guidelines and D-shaped clindamycin susceptibility patterns where considered as D-test positive (D+).

Results

Of 211 S. aureus isolates,88 (41.7%) were methicillin resistant. It was found that of 88 MRSA isolates, 78 (88.6%) were erythromycin (ERY) resistant and 46 (52.3%) were CLI resistant. ERY and CLI resistance in MSSA strains was 22% and 10.6% respectively. Inducible clindamycin resistance was detected in 18 (20.5%) MRSA isolates. 47(53.4%) of MRSA isolates and 9 (7.3%) of MSSA showed constitutive MLSB phenotype.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we found a high prevalence of inducible clindamycin resistance phenotype in our region. We recommend that whenever clindamycin is intended to be used for S. aureus infections, D-test should be performed to facilitate the appropriate treatment of patients.

Keywords: Staphylococcus aureus, clindamycin, Inducible resistance

INTRODUCTION

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is one of the most common organisms causing nosocomial and community-acquired infections worldwide (13). About 30% of the general population is colonized with S. aureus and up to 3% carry methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in their nose (4). These bacteria can cause a wide range of infections from mild folliculitis to potentially fatal systemic illnesses such as bacteremia or endocarditis (5). The increasing prevalence of methicillin resistance among staphylococci is an increasing problem. In England and Wales, during 2006-10, 0.2% of all deaths and 0.4% of hospital deaths were attributed to MRSA (4). Nasal carrier individuals may develop many clinical infections. Despite limited consequences in extramural settings, it has been demonstrated that in certain groups of patients (e.g., those undergoing surgery or hemodialysis and HIV-positive patients), nasal carriage of S. aureus plays an important role in the development of infection (6, 7). Treatment of MRSA strains often require different types of antibiotics (3, 4) and this makes it more difficult to treat staphylococcal infections (8).

Macrolide, lincosamide, streptogramin (MLSB) antibiotics are commonly used in treatment of staphylococcal infections. In this group, clindamycin (CLI), with its excellent pharmacokinetic properties, is a common choice to treat skin and soft tissue infections (1, 2, 9). Its efficacy in the treatment of respiratory tract, bone and joint infections has also been confirmed. With the low incidence of gastrointestinal side-effects, it is suitable for prolonged therapy. It is also an alternative in penicillin-hypersensitive patients, and an important therapeutic option in outpatient therapy or as follow-up after intravenous therapy (2). It has also been indicated to inhibit the production of S. aureus toxins (10, 2).However, widespread use of MLSB antibiotics and unrestricted macrolide usage in Iran has led to an increase in the prevalence of staphylococcal strains which develop resistance to these antibiotics (7, 11).

Macrolide and lincosamide resistance is mainly due to one of these three mechanisms (12):

Target site modification: Ribosomal methylation or mutation which prevents binding of antibiotic to its ribosomal target. This is the most prevalent mechanism of resistance to macrolides and lincosamides encoded by erm genes.

Efflux of antibiotic: encoded by msrA gene

Drug inactivation: encoded by lnu genes

Modification of ribosomal target which confers broad-spectrum resistance to macrolides and lincosamides, is encoded by a variety of erm (erythromycin ribosome methylase) genes. ErmA and ermC are typically staphylococcal genes. This mechanism can be constitutive (cMLSB); always producing the rRNAmethylase, or inducible (iMLSB), that is producing methylase only in the presence of an inductor (2).

It has been demonstrated that clindamycin treatment in patients with iMLSB may lead to cMLSB and therapeutic failure (13). The best way to detect inducible clindamycin resistance (ICR) is a test known as disk approximation test or D-test.

Frequencies of different resistance phenotypes vary by hospital and geographical regions, patient group, bacterial strains and bacterial susceptibility pattern (10). The aim of the present study was to determine the percentage of Staphylococcus aureus isolates having inducible clindamycin resistance in our geographical area using D-test.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study which was conducted, a total of 211 S. aureus isolates were collected from Imam Reza Hospital (IRH) in Mashhad during 2010. Duplicate isolates from the same patient were not included in the study. Isolates were obtained from different wards. Most of them were from pediatrics, burns, internal medicine, infections and tropical diseases, and emergency departments.

The isolates were first identified as S. aureus by standard biochemical techniques and conventional methods (colony morphology, Gram stain, catalase activity, and slide and tube coagulase test).

The isolates were tested for susceptibility to clindamysin (2µg) and erythromycin (15µg) (Mast, UK). To detect MRSA isolates we used oxacillin (1 µg) and cefoxitin (30 µg) disks (Mast, UK). An inhibition zone of 10mm or less around oxacillin disk indicates MRSA. In regards of cefoxitin disk, inhibition zone of less or equal to 21mm was indicated as MRSA. Isolates that were CLI susceptible and erythromycin resistant (ER-R) were tested for inducible resistance by the use of D-test.

A 0.5 McFarland equivalent suspension of organisms was incubated on Muller-Hinton agar (MHA) plate as described in the CLSI recommendations (Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute, 2009) (14). Clindamycin and erythromycin disks were placed 15-26mm apart from each other on the MHA plates. After 18h incubation at 37C, plates were checked. Flattening of inhibition zone (D-shaped) around clindamycin was considered as inducible clindamycin resistance (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

D-zone of inhibition around clindamycin disk indicates the inducible MLSB phenotype.

The test allows for identification of four different phenotypes:

The inducible MLSB phenotype (D+): Resistant to erythromycin and susceptible to clindamycin with a D-zone of inhibition around the clindamycin disk.

The constitutive MLSB phenotype: Resistant to both erythromycin and clindamycin.

The MSB phenotype: Resistant to erythromycin and susceptible to clindamycin.

The susceptible phenotype: Susceptible to both clindamycin and erythromycin.

Data were analyzed by SPSS (ver. 16.0). Chi square test was applied for statistical analysis and level of significance was considered as 0.05.

RESULTS

Of 211 S. aureus isolates, 140 (66.4%) were recovered from male patients and 71 from females. The average age of male and female patients was 38.8± 26.1 and 34.7± 26.4 respectively. (Total: 37.4± 26.2).

Eighty-eight isolates (41.7%) were MRSA. Among 144 specimens with available demographic data, blood and wound infections accounted for the most prevalent specimens collected from inpatients (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Distribution of MRSA and MSSA strains according to their source of recovery.

It was found that out of 88 MRSA isolates, 78 (88.6%) were erythromycin (ERY) resistant and 46 (52.3%) were CLI resistant. ERY and CLI resistance in MSSA strains was 22% and 11.4% respectively. (Table 1)

Table 1.

Antibiotic susceptibility of MRSA and MSSA isolates.

MRSA (n = 88) MSSA (n = 123)
S I R D S I R D
Erythromycin 9 1 78 92 4 27
Clindamycin 23 1 46 18 94 9 13 7

MRSA = Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA = Methicillin Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus; S = susceptible; I = intermediate; R = resistant

Inducible clindamycin resistance was detected in 18 (20.5%) MRSA isolates. Forty-six (52.3%) MRSA isolates and nine (7.3%) MSSA showed constitutive MLSB phenotype. (Table 2)

Table 2.

Susceptibility of S. aureus strains to erythromycin and clindamycin.

MRSA MSSA Total P- value

(n = 88) (%) (n = 123) (%) (n) (%)
ER-S, CL-S 9 10.22 91 73.98 100 47.39
ER-R, CL-R 47 53.40 9 7.32 56 26.54 <0.001
ER-S, CL-R 1 1.13 5 4.06 6 2.84 <0.001
ER-R, CL-S (D) 13 14.77 12 9.76 25 11.85 <0.001
ER-R, CL-S, (D+) 18 20.45 6 4.88 24 11.37 0.17
<0.001
Total (%) 88 100 123 100 211 100

MRSA = Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA = Methicillin Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus; E =erythromycin; CL = clindamycin; S = susceptible; R = resistant; D=D-test negative; D+=D-test positive

DISCUSSION

MRSA is now one of the most common nosocomial pathogens in many countries. Early detection of MRSA and formulation of effective antibiotic policy is of high importance (15). In our study, 41.7% of examined isolates were found to be methicillin resistant. In 2009, a similar prevalence of 41% was reported from Tabriz (16). Ekrami reported prevalence of 60% in 2011 from Ahvaz (17). In India (2011) similar prevalence was reported in different studies. (29.1%, 27.97%, 26%) (1, 10, 14). Nearly the same result (26%) was published from Turkey in the same year (18). The prevalence of MRSA reported from US was 55.7% among inpatients and 48.7% among outpatients (19). The different MRSA prevalence reported from different countries suggests targeted surveillance to obtain local resistance data which can lead to the most effective therapy considering all consequences long term (20).

Frequencies of different resistance phenotypes vary by hospital and geographical regions, patient group, bacterial strains and bacterial susceptibility pattern (10). In the present study, the prevalence of iMLSB, cMLSB and MSB resistance phenotype was 11.37%, 26.07% and 12.32% respectively. In a previous report from our hospital, 0.7% of methicilin resistant staphylococci isolates represent the iMLSB phenotype (21). In a recent study from Iran, 6.4% of isolates had the iMLSB phenotype and 92.8% were constitutively resistant. The MSB phenotype was only seen in 0.8% of isolates (22). Memariani reports a higher incidence of iMLSB phenotype from Iran (20.7%) (23). However, in some other studies from Iran, the reported incidence is lower (9.7%, 5.2% and 5.3%) (2, 24, 25). In Texas, Chavez-Bueno reported the decreasing incidence of iMLSB phenotype from 1999 to 2002. The prevalence of D+ isolates among CA-MRSA was reported to be 93% in 1999; 64% in 2000; 23% in 2001 and 7% in 2002 (26).

The difference observed between the prevalence of inducible and constitutive MLSB resistance was demonstrated to be statistically significant in MRSA and MSSA isolates (p < 0.001). In Turkey, the prevalence of iMLSB, cMLSB, and MSB phenotype among MRSA strains was 18%, 23%, 48% respectively. Lower prevalence was reported from MSSA strains. (2%, 3%, 16% respectively) (18). While in our study 20.45% of MRSA isolates had iMLSB resistance phenotype, and the prevalence of cMLSB and MSB resistance phenotypes was 52.27 and 15.91 percent respectively. Saderi from Iran reported no MSB phenotype among MRSA isolates in 2009, though 9.3% of isolates had inducible and 83.9% had constitutive MLSB phenotype (2). A total prevalence of 10.52% was reported from India in 2011 for iMLSB resistance phenotype. (20% in MRSA and 6.15% in MSSA isolates) (1). In Canada, the prevalence of inducible and constitutive clindamycin resistance among MRSA isolates was 64.7% and 35.3% respectively and in MSSA group it was 90.4% and 8.5% respectively (27). The prevalence of iMLSB phenotype among MSSA isolates in our study was 4.88%, much lower than what was reported from Canada. In our study, the level of constitutive clindamycin resistace among MSSA isolates was 7.32%. In Libya it was 9.1% and in Illinois 1-2% (10, 28).

Higher prevalence of iMLSB phenotype in MRSA infections compared to MSSA infections suggests that clindamycin therapy for MSSA infections is successful in many circumstances while it may lead to treatment failure for MRSA infections.

In conclusion, we found a high prevalence of inducible clindamycin resistance phenotype in our region, and it is considerably higher than our previous report (21). We recommend that whenever clindamycin is intended to be used for S. aureus infections, D-test should be performed to facilitate the appropriate treatment of patients.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank all colleagues and laboratory personnel who contributed to this study. This work was supported by vice chancellery for research of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (MUMS).

REFERENCES

  • 1.Prabhu K, Rao S, Rao V. Inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolated from clinical samples. J Lab Physicians. 2011;3:25–7. doi: 10.4103/0974-2727.78558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Saderi H, Owlia P, Eslami M. Prevalence of Macrolide-Lincosamide-Streptogamin B (MLSB) resistance in S. aureus isolated from patients in Tehran, Iran. Iran J Pathol. 2009;4:161–166. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yilmaz G, Aydin K, Iskender S, Caylan R, Koksal I. Detection and prevalence of inducible clindamycin resistance in staphylococci. J Med Microbiol. 2007;56:342–345. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.46761-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Office for national statistics. Deaths involving MRSA: England and Wales, 2006 to 2010. 2011. Accessed 23 August 2011. Available at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health2/deaths-involving-mrsa/2006-to-2010/statistical-bulletin.html.
  • 5.Cosgrove SE, Qi Y, Kaye KS, Harbarth S, Karchmer AW, Carmeli Y. The impact of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia on patient outcomes: mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26:166–174. doi: 10.1086/502522. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sedighi I, Mashouf RY, Pak N, Rabiee MAS. D-Test Method for Detection of Inducible Clindamycin Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus . Iran J Pediatr. 2009;19:293–297. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kluytmans J, van Belkum A, Verbrugh H. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1997;10:505. doi: 10.1128/cmr.10.3.505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Emaneini M, Eslampour MA, Sedaghat H, Aligholi M, Jabalameli F, Shahsavan S, et al. Characterization of phenotypic and genotypic inducible macrolide resistance in staphylococci in Tehran, Iran. J Chemother. 2009;21:595–597. doi: 10.1179/joc.2009.21.5.595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Feibelkorn KR, Crawford SA, McElmeel ML, Jorgenson JH. Practical disk diffusion method for detection of inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Clin Microbial. 2003;41:4740–4744. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.10.4740-4744.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zorgani A, Shawerf O, Tawil K, El- Turkey E, Gheghesh KS. Inducible clindamycin resistance among staphylococci isolated from burn patients. Libyan J Med. 2009;4:104–106. doi: 10.4176/090128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mohanasoundaram KM. The prevalence of inducible clindamycin resistance among gram positive cocci from various clinical specimens. JCDR. 2011;5:38–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Leclercq R. Mechanism of resistance to macrolides and lincosamides: naure of resistance elements and their clinical implications. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:482–92. doi: 10.1086/324626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Siberry GK, Tekle T, Carrol K, Dick J. Failure of clindamycin treatment of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus expressing inducible clindamycin resistance in vitro. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37:1257–1260. doi: 10.1086/377501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Clinical and Laboratory standards institute. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2009. Performance standard for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; nineteen informational supplement M100-S19. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pai V, Rao VI, Rao SP. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates at a tertiary care hospital in Mangalore, South India. J Lab Physicians. 2010;2:82–84. doi: 10.4103/0974-2727.72155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shoja S, Nahaei MR, Nahaei M. Detection of inducible clidamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis by using D-Test. PharmacolSci. 2009;15:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ekrami A, Samarbafzadeh A, Alavi M, Kalantar E, Hamzeloi F. Prevalence of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus species isolated from burn patients in a burn center, Ahvaz, Iran. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2010;3:84–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Debdas D, Joshi S. Incidence of clindamycin resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus . J Infect DevCtries. 2011;5:316–317. doi: 10.3855/jidc.1598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pillar CM, Draghi DC, Sheehan DJ, Sahm DF. Prevalence of multidrug-resistant, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States: findings of the stratified analysis of the 2004 to 2005 LEADER Surveillance Programs. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;60:221–224. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2007.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Eksi F, Gayyurhan ED, Bayram A, Karsligil T. Determination of antimicrobial susceptibility patterns and inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus strains recovered from southeastern Turkey. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2011;20:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2011.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Naderinasab M, Yousefi F, Farshadzadeh Z, Sasan M. Determine the Inducible Resistance Phenotype in Methicillin Resistance Staphylococcus aureus and Coagulase Negative Staphylococci. Iran J Med Microbiol. 2007;1:25–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Saderi H, Emadi B, Owlia P. Phenotypic and genotypic study of macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin B (MLSB) resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus in Tehran, Iran. Med Sci Monit. 2011;17:48–53. doi: 10.12659/MSM.881386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Memariani M, Pourmand MR, Shirazi MH, Abdossamadi Z, Mardani N. The importance of inducible clindamycin resistance in enterotoxin positive S. aureus isolated from clinical samples. Tehran Univ Med J. 2009;67:250–256. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rahbar M, Hajia M. Inducible Clindamycin Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: A Cross-Sectional Report. Pakistan J Biol Sci. 2007;10:189–92. doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2007.189.192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nafisi MR, Shariati L, Validi M, Karimi A. Prevalence of constitutive and inducible resistance to clindamycin in staphylococci isolates from Hajar and Kashani hospitals in Shahrekord, 2008. J Shahrekord Univ MedSci. 2010;12:13–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chavez-Bueno S, Bozdogan B, Katz K, Bowlware KL, Cushion N, Cavuoti D, et al. Inducible clindamycin resistance and molecular epidemiologic trends of pediatric community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Dallas, Texas. Antimicrob Agents chemother. 2005;49:2283–2288. doi: 10.1128/AAC.49.6.2283-2288.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lavallee C, Rouleau D, Gaudreau C, Roger M, Tsimiklis C, Locas MC, et al. Performance of an agar dilution method and a Vitek 2 Card for detection of inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus spp. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:1354–1357. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01751-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Schreckenberger PC, Ilendo E, Ristow KL. Incidence of constitutive and inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci in a community and a tertiary care hospital. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:2777–2779. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.6.2777-2779.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Iranian Journal of Microbiology are provided here courtesy of Tehran University of Medical Sciences

RESOURCES