Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy logoLink to Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
. 2013 Sep 5;69(1):155–161. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkt344

Fourth Belgian multicentre survey of antibiotic susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria

Ingrid Wybo 1,*, Dorien Van den Bossche 1, Oriane Soetens 1, Evilien Vekens 1, Kristof Vandoorslaer 1, Geert Claeys 2, Youri Glupczynski 3, Margareta Ieven 4,5, Pierrette Melin 6, Claire Nonhoff 7, Hector Rodriguez-Villalobos 8, Jan Verhaegen 9, Denis Piérard 1
PMCID: PMC3861333  PMID: 24008826

Abstract

Objectives

To collect recent data on the susceptibility of anaerobes to antimicrobial agents with known activity against anaerobes, and to compare them with results from previous Belgian multicentre studies.

Methods

Four hundred and three strict anaerobic clinical isolates were prospectively collected from February 2011 to April 2012 in eight Belgian university hospitals. MICs were determined by one central laboratory for 11 antimicrobial agents using Etest methodology.

Results

According to EUCAST breakpoints, >90% of isolates were susceptible to amoxicillin/clavulanate (94%), piperacillin/tazobactam (91%), meropenem (96%), metronidazole (92%) and chloramphenicol (98%), but only 70% and 40% to clindamycin and penicillin, respectively. At CLSI recommended breakpoints, only 71% were susceptible to moxifloxacin and 79% to cefoxitin. MIC50/MIC90 values for linezolid and for tigecycline were 1/4 and 0.5/4 mg/L, respectively. When compared with survey data from 2004, no major differences in susceptibility profiles were noticed. However, the susceptibility of Prevotella spp. and other Gram-negative bacilli to clindamycin decreased from 91% in 1993–94 and 82% in 2004 to 69% in this survey. Furthermore, the susceptibility of clostridia to moxifloxacin decreased from 88% in 2004 to 66% in 2011–12 and that of fusobacteria from 90% to 71%.

Conclusions

Compared with previous surveys, little evolution was seen in susceptibility, except a decline in activity of clindamycin against Prevotella spp. and other Gram-negative bacteria, and of moxifloxacin against clostridia. Since resistance was detected to all antibiotics, susceptibility testing of anaerobic isolates is indicated in severe infections to confirm appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy.

Keywords: anaerobes, Etest, surveillance

Introduction

Anaerobes are important constituents of the bacterial flora of normal human skin and mucous membranes. They are a common cause of endogenous infection and can be responsible for a variety of clinical infections, including brain abscesses, head and neck, intra-abdominal, gynaecological, skin and soft tissue infections, deep abscesses and bacteraemia. These infections can be severe to life-threatening and are often caused by several aerobic and anaerobic pathogens. Because of their fastidious nature, the isolation by culture of anaerobic bacteria from clinical specimens may be difficult and requires appropriate collection, transportation and culture methods. Since anaerobic cultures are long and cumbersome and infections are often mixed, in vitro susceptibility testing is generally not performed routinely. Therefore, the treatment of these infections is mostly empirical and includes an antimicrobial agent with known efficacy against anaerobes.

The spectrum of antibiotic resistance among anaerobes has increased during the last three decades and nowadays it includes even those antibiotics that were once considered to be universally active, such as carbapenems and nitroimidazoles, but whose activity may vary depending on region.1 The CLSI2 recommends periodic monitoring of regional and institutional resistance trends of clinically relevant isolates to guide empirical antimicrobial therapy of infections involving anaerobes.

Three multicentre surveys were previously conducted in Belgium: in 1987,3 1993–944 and 2004.5 The objective of this study was to update the in vitro susceptibility and resistance levels of anaerobes and to compare them with results from previous studies. The impact of using either CLSI or EUCAST clinical breakpoints for anaerobes on the resistance rates was also evaluated.

Materials and methods

Bacteria

Strains were collected from 31 January 2011 to 7 April 2012 in eight Belgian university hospitals: Universitair Ziekenhuis Antwerpen (Antwerp); Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (Brussels); Hôpital Universitaire Erasme (Brussels); Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (Brussels); Universitair Ziekenhuis Gent (Ghent); Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (Leuven); Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (Liège); and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire UCL Mont-Godinne-Dinant (Yvoir). Six of these centres participated in the previous surveys. Each centre was asked to prospectively collect up to 50 consecutive, non-duplicated clinically significant strict anaerobic isolates. Specimen source was recorded for each isolate. The isolates were sent for susceptibility testing to the microbiology laboratory of the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel.

Identification

Species identification was performed by standard methods in the collecting laboratories. Identification was verified at the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) using a Microflex LT mass spectrometer with MALDI Biotyper 3.0 software and Reference Library 3.2.1.0 (Bruker Daltonik GmbH, Bremen, Germany)6 or when necessary by analysis of cellular fatty acid composition using the Microbial Identification System (Microbial Identification Inc., Newark, DE, USA) followed by appropriate biochemical or enzymatic tests7 and/or 16S rRNA gene sequencing.6

Susceptibility testing

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using Etest methodology (bioMérieux Benelux, Brussels, Belgium) as described previously.8 The following antimicrobial agents were tested: penicillin, cefoxitin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem, clindamycin, metronidazole, chloramphenicol, moxifloxacin, tigecycline and linezolid. The medium used was Brucella agar (Becton-Dickinson, Erembodegem, Belgium) supplemented with 5% v/v laked sheep blood, haemin (5 mg/L) and vitamin K1 (1 mg/L), as recommended for the CLSI reference agar dilution procedure. The pre-reduced agar plates were inoculated with a suspension with a turbidity equivalent to that of a 1 McFarland standard (corresponding to an inoculum of 108cfu/mL) and incubated anaerobically at 35°C for 48 h. Bacteroides fragilis ATCC 25285, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron ATCC 29741 and Eggerthella lenta ATCC 43055 were included as control strains in each test run. The isolates were categorized by EUCAST breakpoints9 for penicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem, clindamycin, metronidazole and chloramphenicol. CLSI breakpoints were used for cefoxitin and moxifloxacin since EUCAST has not defined any breakpoints for these two agents. The CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints are shown in Table 1. Until now, neither of these organizations has recommended susceptibility and resistance breakpoints for linezolid and tigecycline against anaerobes. The US FDA susceptibility breakpoint to tigecycline for anaerobes is set at 4 mg/L.10 For linezolid there are no FDA breakpoints available for anaerobic bacteria. Raw data from the previous surveys were used to reinterpret results using these new breakpoints.

Table 1.

EUCAST and CLSI breakpoints for tested antimicrobial agents

Antimicrobial agent EUCAST
 CLSI
susceptible resistant susceptible intermediate resistant
Penicillin ≤0.25 >0.5 ≤0.5 1 ≥2
Cefoxitin NA NA ≤16 32 ≥64
Amoxicillin/clavulanate ≤4/2 >8/2 ≤4/2 8/4 ≥16/8
Piperacillin/tazobactam ≤8/4 >16/4 ≤32/4 64/4 ≥128/4
Meropenem ≤2 >8 ≤4 8 ≥16
Clindamycin ≤4 >4 ≤2 4 ≥8
Metronidazole ≤4 >4 ≤8 16 ≥32
Chloramphenicol ≤8 >8 ≤8 16 ≥32
Moxifloxacin NA NA ≤2 4 ≥8
Tigecycline NA NA NA NA NA
Linezolid NA NA NA NA NA
Open in a new tab

NA, not available.

In EUCAST tables, the intermediate category is not listed. It is implied as the values between the susceptible breakpoint and the resistant breakpoint.9

In addition, a β-lactamase test was performed on each isolate by using the nitrocefin test.

Detection of the cfiA gene

PCR analysis was performed to detect the presence of the cfiA gene in B. fragilis isolates included in the present study as well as in the 2004 survey.5 The annealing temperature of the cfiA gene detection method described by Sóki et al.11 was increased to 62°C to avoid non-specific reactions. The presence of a PCR product of 728 bp was regarded as positive.12

Detection and typing of nim genes

Bacteroides and Parabacteroides spp. isolates of the present study and of the 2004 survey5 were screened for nim genes with primers NIM-3 and NIM-5 and amplification conditions as described previously.13 Presence of a PCR product of 458 bp was regarded as a presumptive positive. Confirmation of the presence and typing of the nim genes was done by nucleotide sequencing of the PCR product.14

Statistical analysis

MedCalc software (version 11.4.4.0; MedCalc Software bvba, Mariakerke, Belgium) was used to carry out Fisher's exact test.

Ethics approval

The protocol of this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (B.U.N. 143201111957).

Results and discussion

Four hundred and three isolates were collected from various sources: 154 from abdominal sites (38%), 66 from wounds and pus (16%), 59 from abscesses (15%), 42 from blood (10%), 14 from gynaecological and obstetrical sites (4%), 8 from the respiratory tract (2%), 8 from the CNS (2%), 5 from ear and sinus (1%) and 47 from miscellaneous other sites (12%). Bacteroides and Parabacteroides spp. were the most prevalent, accounting for 45% of the isolates. Fusobacterium spp. accounted for 5%, Prevotella spp. and other Gram-negative bacilli for 13%, Clostridium spp. for 9%, non-spore-forming Gram-positive bacilli for 10% and anaerobic cocci for 18%.

In the 2011–12 survey, β-lactamases were detected in 52% of the 403 isolates. β-Lactamases were present in 96% of Bacteroides and Parabacteroides spp. and in 73% of Prevotella spp. strains. Among Fusobacterium spp. and Clostridium spp., three β-lactamase-producing fusobacteria (14%) and two β-lactamase-producing clostridia (5%) were detected. All other isolates were β-lactamase negative (Table S1, available as Supplementary data at JAC Online).

The numbers of isolates, MIC ranges, MIC50 and MIC90 values and the proportions of susceptible isolates are represented in Table 2. In order to allow valid comparison of results with earlier data, susceptibility rates found in previous Belgian surveys are also shown. These were recalculated from the original individual data when breakpoints were modified after the first publication.3–5 The distribution of individual species is presented in the footnotes of Table 2 for the strains of this study and can be found in the original reports for the previous surveys. More detailed information with comparison of percentages of susceptible isolates according to CLSI and EUCAST breakpoints and individual results for the most prevalent species is available in Table S1, available as Supplementary data at JAC Online.

Table 2.

Antimicrobial activities of 11 antibiotics against different groups of anaerobes and comparison of the percentage of susceptible isolates with previous Belgian surveys; raw data of the previous surveys were used to reinterpret results using the current breakpoints

Organism/antimicrobial agent 2011–12
 Isolates susceptible (%)
MIC range (mg/L) MIC50/MIC90 (mg/L) S (%) 2004 1993–94 1987
All isolates (n) 403 443 323 274
 penicillin < 0.002 to >32 8/>32 40 32 37 44
 cefoxitina <0.016 to >256 2/64 79 78 83 NT
 amoxicillin/clavulanate <0.016 to >256 0.25/4 94 92 96 97
 piperacillin/tazobactam <0.016 to >256 0.25/8 91 83 91 NT
 meropenem 0.002 to >32 0.125/1 96 96 NT NT
 clindamycin <0.016 to >256 1/>256 70 72 81 90
 metronidazole <0.016 to >256 0.25/2 92 94 93 96
 chloramphenicol 0.032 to >32 4/8 98 98 100 99
 moxifloxacina 0.016 to >32 0.5/>32 71 75 NT NT
 linezolid 0.016 to >256 1/4 NB NB NT NT
 tigecycline <0.016 to >32 0.5/4 NB NB NT NT
Bacteroides and Parabacteroides spp.b (n) 180 238 163 119
 penicillin 0.032 to >32 >32/>32 3 1 1 2
 cefoxitina 0.125 to >256 16/128 56 62 72 NT
 amoxicillin/clavulanate 0.032–32 1/8 87 86 93 96
 piperacillin/tazobactam <0.016 to >256 2/32 85 77 98 NT
 meropenem 0.032 to >32 0.25/2 92 93 NT NT
 clindamycin <0.016 to >256 4/>256 58 61 77 88
 metronidazole 0.064–4 0.25/0.5 100 99 98 100
 chloramphenicol 0.064–16 8/8 97 99 100 99
 moxifloxacina 0.064 to >32 2/>32 62 68 NT NT
 linezolid 0.5–16 2/4 NB NB NT NT
 tigecycline 0.064–64 2/8 NB NB NT NT
B. fragilis (n) 69 135 98 68
 penicillin 16 to >32 >32/>32 0 1 1 0
 cefoxitina 4 to >256 8/32 84 86 86 NT
 amoxicillin/clavulanate 0.25–8 0.5/4 96 92 95 97
 piperacillin/tazobactam 0.032 to >256 0.25/2 96 100 98 NT
 meropenem 0.064 to >32 0.125/4 87 93 NT NT
 clindamycin 0.032 to >256 1/>256 77 70 88 91
 metronidazole 0.125–2 0.25/0.5 100 99 100 100
 chloramphenicol 2–16 8/8 99 100 100 99
 moxifloxacina 0.25 to >32 0.5/>32 70 73 NT NT
 linezolid 1–16 2/4 NB NB NT NT
 tigecycline 0.5 to >32 2/8 NB NB NT NT
Bacteroides and Parabacteroides spp. without B. fragilis (n) 111 103 65 51
 penicillin 0.032 to >32 >32/>32 5 1 0 4
 cefoxitina 0.125–256 32/128 39 30 51 NT
 amoxicillin/clavulanate 0.032–32 1/8 81 78 89 94
 piperacillin/tazobactam <0.016 to >256 4/32 78 47 71 NT
 meropenem 0.032–32 0.25/2 96 94 NT NT
 clindamycin <0.016 to >256 8/>256 46 51 60 84
 metronidazole 0.064–4 0.25/0.5 100 98 94 100
 chloramphenicol 0.064–16 8/8 96 98 100 100
 moxifloxacina 0.064 to >32 2/>32 58 60 NT NT
 linezolid 0.5–16 2/4 NB NB NT NT
 tigecycline 0.064–32 1/8 NB NB NT NT
Fusobacterium spp.c (n) 21 30 16 10
 penicillin 0.004 to >32 0.016/>32 81 100 81 50
 cefoxitina <0.016–4 0.125/4 100 100 100 NT
 amoxicillin/clavulanate <0.016–4 0.064/1 100 100 100 100
 piperacillin/tazobactam <0.016–8 0.032/4 100 100 100 NT
 meropenem 0.002–1 0.016/0.125 100 100 NT NT
 clindamycin <0.016 to >256 0.064/16 81 93 75 90
 metronidazole <0.016–0.25 0.064/0.125 100 100 100 100
 chloramphenicol 0.125–8 0.5/4 100 100 100 100
 moxifloxacina 0.125 to >32 0.5/>32 71 90 NT NT
 linezolid 0.064–8 0.25/1 NB NB NT NT
 tigecycline <0.016–1 0.125/0.25 NB NB NT NT
Prevotella spp. and other Gram-negative bacillid (n) 52 50 23 39
 penicillin <0.002 to >32 4/>32 35 26 48 59
 cefoxitina <0.016–8 0.5/2 100 98 96 NT
 amoxicillin/clavulanate <0.016–2 0.125/1 100 100 100 95
 piperacillin/tazobactam <0.016–32 0.125/0.5 98 98 100 NT
 meropenem 0.002–0.25 0.064/0.125 100 100 NT NT
 clindamycin <0.016 to >256 0.032/>256 69 82 91 92
 metronidazole <0.016 to >256 0.25/2 96 98 91 100
 chloramphenicol 0.032–8 2/4 100 100 100 100
 moxifloxacina 0.064 to >32 0.5/4 77 76 NT NT
 linezolid 0.016 to >256 1/2 NB NB NT NT
 tigecycline 0.016–4 0.25/1 NB NB NT NT
Clostridium spp.e (n) 38 57 42 45
 penicillin 0.032 to >32 0.125/2 71 77 81 84
 cefoxitina 0.25 to >256 1/32 90 91 90 NT
 amoxicillin/clavulanate <0.016–4 0.064/0.5 100 97 100 100
 piperacillin/tazobactam 0.016 to >256 0.125/8 95 91 98 NT
 meropenem 0.004–2 0.032/1 100 98 NT NT
 clindamycin <0.016 to >256 0.5/32 82 77 83 87
 metronidazole <0.016–4 0.25/2 100 98 100 100
 chloramphenicol 0.25–8 4/8 100 95 100 96
 moxifloxacina 0.032 to >32 0.5/>32 66 88 NT NT
 linezolid 0.25–16 2/4 NB NB NT NT
 tigecycline 0.016–16 0.25/4 NB NB NT NT
Non-spore-forming Gram-positive bacillif (n) 40 31 22 14
 penicillin 0.008–8 0.032/2 80 81 73 93
 cefoxitina 0.016–64 0.25/16 95 100 86 NT
 amoxicillin/clavulanate 0.016–2 0.064/0.5 100 100 100 100
 piperacillin/tazobactam <0.016–64 0.25/4 90 84 91 NT
 meropenem 0.016–0.5 0.125/0.25 100 100 NT NT
 clindamycin <0.016 to >256 0.064/>256 85 90 86 93
 metronidazole <0.016 to >256 >256/>256 25 35 36 36
 chloramphenicol 0.064–8 0.5/4 100 97 100 100
 moxifloxacina 0.064 to >32 0.125/2 93 97 NT NT
 linezolid 0.064–16 0.125/1 NB NB NT NT
 tigecycline 0.032–0.5 0.125/0.5 NB NB NT NT
Anaerobic coccig (n) 72 37 57 47
 penicillin <0.002 to >32 0.064/0.5 88 81 77 85
 cefoxitina <0.016–32 0.5/2 99 100 100 NT
 amoxicillin/clavulanate <0.016 to >256 0.125/0.5 97 100 96 98
 piperacillin/tazobactam <0.016–128 0.064/1 96 86 88 NT
 meropenem 0.002–16 0.032/0.25 99 100 NT NT
 clindamycin <0.016 to >256 0.25/>256 83 95 89 94
 metronidazole <0.016 to >256 0.25/1 99 100 95 94
 chloramphenicol 0.5 to >32 2/4 99 97 100 98
 moxifloxacina 0.016 to >32 0.125/16 81 78 NT NT
 linezolid 0.125–2 0.5/1 NB NB NT NT
 tigecycline 0.032–2 0.125/0.5 NB NB NT NT
Open in a new tab

NT, not tested; NB, no EUCAST or CLSI breakpoints available; S, susceptible.

aNo EUCAST breakpoints available; CLSI breakpoints were used.

bIncludes Bacteroides caccae (3 isolates), B. cellulosilyticus (1 isolate), B. coprocola (1 isolate), B. fragilis (69 isolates), B. massiliensis (1 isolate), B. nordii (1 isolate), B. ovatus/xylanisolvens (19 isolates), B. pyogenes (5 isolates), B. salyersiae (3 isolates), B. salyersiae/nordii (1 isolate), Bacteroides sp. (1 isolate), B. tectus (1 isolate), B. thetaiotaomicron (40 isolates), B. uniformis (8 isolates), B. vulgatus/dorei (17 isolates), Parabacteroides distasonis (8 isolates) and P. merdae (1 isolate).

cIncludes Fusobacterium gonidiaformans (2 isolates), F. mortiferum (2 isolates), F. necrophorum (5 isolates), F. nucleatum (7 isolates) and F. varium (5 isolates).

dIncludes Campylobacter rectus (1 isolate), Dialister micraerophilus (2 isolates), Porphyromonas asaccharolytica (1 isolate), P. somerae (2 isolates), Prevotella baroniae (1 isolate), P. bergensis (1 isolate), P. bivia (10 isolates), P. buccae (5 isolates), P. buccalis (1 isolate), P. denticola (1 isolate), P. disiens (8 isolates), P. histicola (1 isolate), P. loescheii (1 isolate), P. melaninogenica (2 isolates), P. nanceiensis (2 isolates), P. nigrescens (4 isolates), P. oris (1 isolate), P. salivae (1 isolate), Prevotella sp. (4 isolates), P. timonensis (1 isolate), P. veroralis (1 isolate) and Sutterella wadsworthensis (1 isolate).

eIncludes Clostridium bifermentans (1 isolate), C. bolteae/clostridioforme (3 isolates), C. cadaveris (1 isolate), C. citroniae (1 isolate), C. clostridioforme (1 isolate), C. hathewayi (3 isolates), C. innocuum (1 isolate), C. limosum (1 isolate), C. perfringens (17 isolates), C. ramosum (4 isolates), C. septicum (1 isolate), Clostridium sp. (1 isolate), C. sporogenes (2 isolates) and C. tertium (1 isolate).

fIncludes Actinobaculum massiliense (1 isolate), A. schaalii (1 isolate), Actinomyces odontolyticus (1 isolate), A. radingae (1 isolate), Actinomyces sp. (2 isolates), Anaerotruncus sp. (1 isolate), Bifidobacterium dentium (1 isolate), Collinsella aerofaciens (1 isolate), Eggerthella lenta (4 isolates), Flavonifractor plautii (1 isolate), Mobiluncus sp. (1 isolate), Propionibacterium acnes (22 isolates), P. avidum (1 isolate), P. granulosum (1 isolate) and Slackia exigua (1 isolate).

gIncludes Acidaminococcus fermentans (1 isolate), Anaerococcus sp. (2 isolates), A. vaginalis (1 isolate), Finegoldia magna (21 isolates), Parvimonas micra (16 isolates), Peptoniphilus harei (7 isolates), Peptoniphilus sp. (1 isolate), Peptostreptococcus anaerobius (12 isolates), P. anaerobius/stomatis (2 isolates), Staphylococcus saccharolyticus (1 isolate), Veillonella sp. (6 isolates), V. parvula (1 isolate) and V. parvula/dispar (1 isolate).

After reinterpretation of the raw data from our previous surveys, very few changes in susceptibility rates were observed. Bacteroides and Parabacteroides spp., well known as being more virulent and more resistant to antimicrobial agents than most other anaerobes, were still the most prevalent organisms. Metronidazole, chloramphenicol and meropenem remained very active against these organisms, with susceptibility rates of 100%, 97% and 92%, respectively. As in the previous survey,15 a small number of Bacteroides and Parabacteroides spp. isolates harboured nim genes (2.8% versus 2.5% in 2004) (Table S2, available as Supplementary data at JAC Online). The nimA gene was detected in three isolates (one B. fragilis, one B. thetaiotaomicron and one B. vulgatus/dorei) and the nimD gene in two isolates (one B. thetaiotaomicron and one B. vulgatus/dorei). None of these genes, which can confer resistance to metronidazole, was expressed in the present survey.16,17

Thirteen percent of B. fragilis isolates and 4.5% of other Bacteroides and Parabacteroides spp. isolates were intermediate or resistant to meropenem according to EUCAST breakpoints in this survey. While 9 of the 10 meropenem non-susceptible B. fragilis isolates belonged to division II (cfiA-positive) strains in 2004,12,18 in 2011–12 only 2 resistant B. fragilis isolates harboured this gene, suggesting a combination of overexpressed CepA chromosomal cephalosporinase and porin impermeability in the remaining 7 non-susceptible isolates (Table S3, available as Supplementary data at JAC Online).

The most salient difference between EUCAST and CLSI is the lower EUCAST breakpoint for piperacillin/tazobactam. While as many as 98% of all isolates were considered susceptible to piperacillin/tazobactam when using CLSI breakpoints, only 91% were susceptible when using EUCAST breakpoints, to be compared with a susceptibility rate of 94% to amoxicillin/clavulanate, equal for CLSI and EUCAST. Susceptibility to piperacillin/tazobactam, like that to amoxicillin/clavulanate, varied among Bacteroides and Parabacteroides species, ranging from 100% to 60%; exact figures by species are represented in Table S1, available as Supplementary data at JAC Online.

Clindamycin showed a clear trend towards decreasing activity against Prevotella spp. and other Gram-negative bacilli. In comparison with the first two surveys (>90% susceptibility) and the third survey (82%), there was a further decrease in susceptibility to clindamycin (69%) (Fisher's exact test, second survey versus present survey; P = 0.044), which was also noted in the study of Glupczynski et al.19 The activity of clindamycin against Bacteroides and Parabacteroides spp., with a susceptibility rate of 58%, is insufficient for treatment of infections where these organisms are prevalent, such as abdominal infections.

Although EUCAST mentions that newer fluoroquinolone agents have enhanced intrinsic activity against anaerobes, there is insufficient evidence that anaerobes are a good target for therapy with moxifloxacin and no breakpoints have been made available by this committee. When using CLSI breakpoints, susceptibility of anaerobes to moxifloxacin slightly decreased from 75% in 2004 to 71% in 2011–12. However, a significant decrease in susceptibility to moxifloxacin was observed for clostridia (from 88% in 2004 to 66% in 2011–12) (Fisher's exact test; P = 0.019) and a trend of decreasing activity against fusobacteria (from 90% to 71%) (Fisher's exact test; P = 0.14). The rates of resistance to moxifloxacin have been shown to vary considerably between countries.1 A randomized clinical trial in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections suggested that moxifloxacin could be a valuable treatment option for a range of community-acquired intra-abdominal infections with mild to moderate severity.20 However, MIC90 values of B. fragilis and B. thetaiotaomicron to moxifloxacin in this clinical trial were 4 mg/L compared with >32 mg/L recorded in the present in vitro survey. As only 71% of anaerobes were susceptible in our survey, we believe that this drug should not be used in our country for the empirical treatment of anaerobic infections.

In vitro results indicate that tigecycline may be useful in the treatment of infections involving anaerobic bacteria. Until now no breakpoints for susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria have been proposed by EUCAST or CLSI, because no correlation could be found between MIC values, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data and clinical outcome.9 Only FDA-approved breakpoints are available, which correspond to the MIC distribution of anaerobic organisms in clinical trials. Although the proposed breakpoint cut-off of 4 mg/L is not fully supported by pharmacodynamic values based on serum concentrations, high tissue concentrations reached at infection sites or in abscesses could support it.21

In this survey as well as in the 2004 study, linezolid showed good in vitro activity against all anaerobic bacteria, with overall 97% of isolates having an MIC ≤ 4 mg/L, and results are largely comparable to those of other surveys.22,23 However, clinical data on linezolid in the treatment of anaerobic infections are limited to only a few case reports24,25 and no official breakpoints are available.

In conclusion, the overall susceptibility of anaerobes showed little evolution in comparison with our previous surveys, except a decline in the activity of clindamycin against Prevotella spp. and other Gram-negative isolates and of moxifloxacin against clostridia. However, the use of EUCAST breakpoints reduced the percentage of strains susceptible to piperacillin/tazobactam to 91%. Meropenem and metronidazole remain the two most potent agents for the treatment of anaerobic infections, although organisms resistant to each of them were detected. In vitro susceptibility testing of anaerobic isolates is indicated in severe infections to confirm the appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from Bayer, Brussels, Pfizer, Brussels and AstraZeneca, Brussels.

Transparency declarations

I. W. and H. R.-V. have received support to attend an international conference from Pfizer, Belgium. All other authors: none to declare.

Supplementary data

Tables S1, S2 and S3 are available as Supplementary data at JAC Online (http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/).

Supplementary Data
supp_69_1_155__index.html (903B, html)

Acknowledgements

This study was performed under the auspices of the BVIKM-SBIMC (Belgische Vereniging voor Infectiologie en Klinische Microbiologie/Société Belge d'Infectiologie et de Microbiologie Clinique). This work has been partly presented as poster presentations at the Eighteenth European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (Barcelona, Spain, 2008) and 32e Réunion interdisciplinaire de chimiothérapie anti-infectieuse (Paris La Défense, France, 2012).

References

  • 1.Nagy E, Urbán E, Nord CE, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Bacteroides fragilis group isolates in Europe: 20 years of experience. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011;17:371–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03256.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Anaerobic Bacteria—Seventh Edition: Approved Standard M11-A7. Wayne, PA, USA: CLSI; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Piérard D, De Meyer A, Rosseel P, et al. In vitro activity of amoxycillin plus clavulanic acid and ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid compared with that of other antibiotics against anaerobic bacteria. Acta Clin Belg. 1989;44:228–36. doi: 10.1080/17843286.1989.11718022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Piérard D, De Meyer A, Rosseel P, et al. In vitro activity of amoxycillin/clavulanate and ticarcillin/clavulanate compared with that of other antibiotics against anaerobic bacteria: comparison with the results of the 1987 survey. Acta Clin Belg. 1996;51:70–9. doi: 10.1080/17843286.1996.11718489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wybo I, Piérard D, Verschraegen I, et al. Third Belgian multicentre survey of antibiotic susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;59:132–9. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkl458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wybo I, Soetens O, De Bel A, et al. Species identification of clinical Prevotella isolates by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50:1415–8. doi: 10.1128/JCM.06326-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jousimies-Somer H, Summanen P, Citron DM, et al. Anaerobic bacteriology manual. 6th edn. Belmont: Star Publishing Company; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pierard D, De MA, Rosseel P, et al. Use of the E-test for determining antimicrobial susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria. Pathol Biol (Paris) 1996;44:358–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.EUCAST. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 3.1, 2013. http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/ 13 July 2013, date last accessed.
  • 10.US FDA. FDA Approved Drug Products Label for TYGACIL, NDA no. 021821. (approved on 23/05/2013). http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/021821s037lbl.pdf. (13 July 2013, date last accessed)
  • 11.Sóki J, Fodor E, Hecht DW, et al. Molecular characterization of imipenem-resistant, cfiA-positive Bacteroides fragilis isolates from the USA, Hungary and Kuwait. J Med Microbiol. 2004;53:413–9. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.05452-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wybo I, De Bel A, Soetens O, et al. Differentiation of cfiA-negative and cfiA-positive Bacteroides fragilis isolates by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49:1961–4. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02321-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Trinh S, Reysset G. Detection by PCR of the nim genes encoding 5-nitroimidazole resistance in Bacteroides spp. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34:2078–84. doi: 10.1128/jcm.34.9.2078-2084.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Theron MM, Janse Van Rensburg MN, Chalkley LJ, et al. Nitroimidazole resistance genes (nimB) in aerobic Gram-positive cocci (previously Peptostreptococcus spp.) J Antimicrob Chemother. 54:240–2. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkh270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wybo I, Soetens O, Vandoorslaer K, et al. Prevalence of nim-genes in Bacteroides fragilis group in Belgium; Clin Microbiol Infect 2008; 14 Suppl 7: S600 (P2039) [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gal M, Brazier JS. Metronidazole resistance in Bacteroides spp. carrying nim genes and the selection of slow-growing metronidazole-resistant mutants. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;54:109–16. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkh296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lofmark S, Fang H, Hedberg M, et al. Inducible metronidazole resistance and nim genes in clinical Bacteroides fragilis group isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:1253–6. doi: 10.1128/AAC.49.3.1253-1256.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nagy E, Becker S, Sóki J, et al. Differentiation of division I (cfiA-negative) and division II (cfiA-positive) Bacteroides fragilis strains by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Med Microbiol. 2011;60:1584–90. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.031336-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Glupczynski Y, Berhin C, Nizet H. Antimicrobial susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria in Belgium as determined by E-test methodology. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009;28:261–7. doi: 10.1007/s10096-008-0624-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.De Waele JJ, Tellado JM, Adler J, et al. Randomised clinical trial of moxifloxacin versus ertapenem in complicated intra-abdominal infections: results of the PROMISE study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013;41:57–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.08.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stein GE, Craig WA. Tigecycline: a critical analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;34:518–24. doi: 10.1086/505494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Behra-Miellet J, Calvet L, Dubreuil L. Activity of linezolid against anaerobic bacteria. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2003;22:28–34. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(03)00087-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Snydman DR, Jacobus NV, McDermott LA. Evaluation of the in vitro activity of NVP-LMB415 against clinical anaerobic isolates with emphasis on the Bacteroides fragilis group. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;55:1024–8. doi: 10.1093/jac/dki107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Salin F, Vianello F, Manara R, et al. Linezolid in the treatment of brain abscess due to Peptostreptococcus. Scand J Infect Dis. 2006;38:203–5. doi: 10.1080/00365540500322270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wareham DW, Wilks M, Ahmed D, et al. Anaerobic sepsis due to multidrug-resistant Bacteroides fragilis: microbiological cure and clinical response with linezolid therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:e67–e68. doi: 10.1086/428623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Data
supp_69_1_155__index.html (903B, html)
supp_dkt344_dkt344supp.doc (391.5KB, doc)

Articles from Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES