Abstract
Objective : The objective of the study was to observe the antimicrobial resistance of AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli.
Methods: Six hundred and seventy E. coli were isolated from 20,257 various pathological samples collected from The Children’s Hospital and Institute of Child Health, Lahore, Pakistan. The isolates showed resistance to ceftazidime which were further examined for AmpC β-lactamase activity by Disc Potentiation method.
Results: There were 670 isolates of E. coli out of which 85 (12.6%) were AmpC β-lactamase producers. Risk factors like intravenous line (76.5%), endotracheal tube (22.4%), surgery (12.9%) and urinary catheters (7.1%) were found to be associated with infection caused by AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli. Antimicrobial resistance pattern revealed that AmpC producing E. coli were highly resistant to co-amoxiclav, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, cefuroxime, cefixime, ceftriaxone and cefoxitin (100% each). Least resistance was observed against sulbactam-cefoperazone (14.1%), cefepime (7.1%), piperacillin-tazobactam (5.9%) and none of the isolates were resistant to imipenem and meropenem.
Conclusion: The minimum use of invasive devices and strict antibiotic policies can reduce the spread of AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli.
Key Words: E. coli, AmpC β-lactamase, Antimicrobial resistance, Multidrug resistant E. coli
INTRODUCTION
β-lactam antibiotics account for approximately 50% of global antibiotic consumption which has considerably increased the resistance in Gram negative bacteria.1 AmpC β-lactamase production is one of the commonest causes of resistance to β-lactam antibiotics among Gram-negative bacteria. AmpC β-lactamases are resistant to aminopenicillins, carboxypenicillins, ureidopenicillins, cephalosporins, broad as well as extended spectrum cephalosporins (cephamycin) and monobactams (aztreonam).2,3 AmpC β-lactamases are resistant to β-lactamase inhibitors like clavulanic acid.4
E. coli is a major organism among normal flora and it causes a wide variety of intestinal and extra-intestinal diseases, such as diarrhea, urinary tract infections, septicemia and neonatal meningitis.5 It is resistant to a wide variety of clinically important antibiotics due to production of AmpC β-lactamase enzyme.6 Most of the risk factors of AmpC producing E. coli infections include prolonged hospital and intensive care unit stay, use of urinary, arterial or venous catheters, ventilator assistance, haemodialysis, emergency abdominal surgeries, use of naso gastric tube and prior use of β-lactamase antibiotic.7,8
Clinical isolates of AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli and their antimicrobial resistance have been described from different parts of the world.9-11 However, there are only few studies from Pakistan, which have systematically reported the role of various interventions and antimicrobial resistance of AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli. This study was undertaken to assess the risk factors and antimicrobial resistance pattern of such E. coli isolated from paediatric patients.
METHODS
This study was conducted at Microbiology Department of The Children’s Hospital and Institute of Child Health Lahore, Pakistan, during March 2011 to February 2012. A total number of 670 E. coli strains were isolated from various clinical specimens such as blood, pus, urine, sputum, tracheal secretions and various tips. The isolates were identified as E. coli by colonial morphology, Gram’s stain, catalase test, oxidase test and API 20E system (bioMerieux, France).12
Isolates were screened for AmpC β-lactamase production by disc diffusion method as described by Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI).13 The E. coli which showed reduced susceptibility to ceftazidime and cefotaxime were selected for further confirmation by Disc Potentiation method using 3-amino phenyl boronic acid (APB).14
A suspension of each isolated AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli was made according to the 0.5 McFarland turbidity standard and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using two plates on Mueller Hinton agar (90mm) for each strain. The antibiotic discs of amikacin (30 µg), aztreonam (30 µg), cefepime (30µg), cefixime (5 µg), cefotaxime (30 µg), cefoxitin (30 µg), cefpodoxime (30 µg), ceftazidime (30 µg),cefuro xime (30 µg), ciprofloxacin (5 µg), co-amoxiclav (20/10 µg), co-trimoxazole (1.25/23.75 µg), gentamycin (10 µg), meropenem (10 µg), imipenem (10 µg), piperacillin-tazobactam (100/10 µg) and sulbactam-cefoperazone (75/30 µg) were placed on Mueller-Hinton agar plates and incubated overnight at 37℃. After overnight incubation the diameter of each zone of inhibition was measured in mm. The antimicrobial susceptibility testing results were noted according to the CLSI guidelines.13
The clinical record of each patient was reviewed. The patients were assessed for the various interventions like intravenous line, endotracheal tube, surgery, peritoneal dialysis catheters, nasal gastric tube, urinary catheters and central venous pressure line.
RESULTS
During the study period, 20,257 clinical samples were processed for isolation of AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli. Out of 670 E. coli isolated from these samples, there were 85 (12.6%) AmpC β-lactamase producers.
The 85 patients infected with AmpC producing E. coli had undergone through various interventions during hospitalization as shown in Table-I. These interventions included intravenous lines 65 (76.5%), endotracheal tubes 19 (22.4%), surgeries 11 (12.9%), peritoneal dialysis catheters 8 (9.4%), naso gastric tubes 6 (7.1%) and central venous pressure lines 2 (2.4%).
Tables-I.
Various interventions among AmpC positive E. coli patients (n=85).
| Interventions |
AmpC positive E. coli
|
|
|---|---|---|
| n | % | |
| Intravenous line | 65 | 76.5 |
| Endotracheal tube | 19 | 22.4 |
| Surgery | 11 | 12.9 |
| Peritoneal dialysis catheter | 8 | 9.4 |
| Naso gastric tubes | 6 | 7.1 |
| Urinary catheters | 6 | 7.1 |
| Central venous pressure line | 2 | 2.4 |
All the 85 (100%) AmpC producing E. coli were resistant to co-amoxiclav, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, cefuroxime, cefixime, ceftriaxone and cefoxitin. AmpC producing E. coli showed less resistance to sulbactam-cefoperazone 12 (14.1%), cefepime 6 (7.1%) and piperacillin-tazobactam 5 (5.9%). None of the isolates were found to be resistant to imipenem and meropenem (Table-II).
Table-II.
Antimicrobial resistance of AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli.
| Antibiotics | Resistant n (%) |
|---|---|
| Co-amoxiclav (20/10µg) | 85 (100) |
| Ceftazidime (30µg) | 85 (100) |
| Ceftriaxone (30µg) | 85 (100) |
| Cefotaxime (30µg) | 85 (100) |
| Cefixime (5µg) | 85 (100) |
| Cefuroxime (30µg) | 85 (100) |
| Cefoxitin | 85 (100) |
| Co-trimoxazole (1.25/23.75µg) | 78 (91.8) |
| Cefpodoxime (30µg) | 74 (87.1) |
| Aztreonam (30µg) | 59 (69.4) |
| Gentamicin (10µg) | 53 (62.4) |
| Amikacin (30µg) | 52 (61.2) |
| Ciprofloxacin (5µg) | 29 (34.1) |
| Sulbactam-cefoperazone (75/30µg) | 12 (14.1) |
| Cefepime (30µg) | 6 (7.1) |
| Piperacillin-tazobactam (100/10µg) | 5 (5.9) |
| Imipenem (10µg) | 0 (0) |
| Meropenem (10µg) | 0 (0) |
DISCUSSION
The emergence of resistance to the third generation cephalosporins in Gram negative bacteria is a major concern which is mostly caused by AmpC β-lactamase. It is difficult to treat multidrug resistant AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli. High frequency of AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli and their resistance to antibiotic has been reported in many areas of the world and which is continuously increasing.2 In our study, 12.6% of AmpC producing E. coli were isolated from paediatric patients. These observations are similar to the studies carried out by some other workers.15,16 Generally, hospital environment accounts high number of resistance bacteria which frequently transfers from one patient to another.
There are many factors such as various interventions during hospitalization which are associated with the transmission of AmpC β-lactamase producing bacteria. In our study various such interventions were intravenous lines (76.5%), surgeries (12.9%), peritoneal dialysis catheters (9.4%), naso gastric tubes (7.1%), urinary catheters (7.1%) and central venous pressure lines (2.4%). The risk factors associated with AmpC producing organism have also been investigated in different studies. A case control study on AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli was carried out among the patients who had undergone various invasive procedures who had bacteremia. These included urinary catheter (37%), peritoneal dialysis catheter (6.3%) and intravenous lines (3.7%).17 Another study reported indwelling urinary catheter (25.9%) and central venous catheter (29.6%) as risk factors for infections caused by AmpC β-lactamase producing strains.18 These findings suggested that these risk factors posed a threat for the patients to become colonized or infected with AmpC β-lactamase producing strains. The patients who receive these interventions like intravenous line, urinary catheters and other catheters become susceptible to infections caused by AmpC β-lactamase producing strains.
In the current study, AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli were multidrug resistant. All were resistant to co-amoxiclav, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, cefixime, cefuroxime and cefoxitin. These findings are in accordance with the work done by some researchers. One such study from Korea reported all of the AmpC producing E. coli were resistant to co-amoxiclav, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone and cefoxitin (100% each).19 Similar observations were found in another study from Spain.20 These findings clearly show that AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli strains are highly resistant to clinically important antibiotics. Continuous or frequent use of these antibiotics probably leads to higher resistance rates of AmpC-producing isolates, especially in paediatric populations.15
The isolated AmpC β-lactamases producing E. coli found to be significantly resistant to co-trimoxazole (91.8%), cefpodoxime (87.1%), aztreonam (69.4%), gentamicin (62.4%), amikacin (61.2%) and ciprofloxacin (34.1%). These findings are slightly different from other studies. One study conducted in China observed antibiotic resistance of AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli from different paediatric hospitals. The isolated strains were found to be resistant to ciprofloxacin (70%), gentamicin (70%) and amikacin (30%).15 Another study carried out in France reported that AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli isolated from bacteremic patients were considerably resistant to ciprofloxacin (50%) but less resistant to gentamicin (5.6%) and none of the strain was resistant to amikacin.21 In another study from Korea, none of the AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli showed resistant to co-trimoxazole, aztreonam, cefpodoxime, gentamicin, amikacin and ciprofloxacin.19 Higher rates of resistance to these antibiotics in our study could also be due to other possible mechanisms like efflux pump or loss of porin.
AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli were found to be less resistant to sulbactam-cefoperazone (14.1%), cefepime (7.1%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (5.9%) in our study. Contrary to our results, studies from Korea and Canada reported none of AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli resistant to sulbactam-cefoperazone, cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam.19,22 Mulvey et al reported, 4.7% of 65 AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli showed resistance to piperacillin-tazobactam.16
None of the AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli was found resistant to imipenem and meropenem in our study. Similar findings have been reported in other studies conducted in Japan, United States and Spain.20,23 A study from Pakistan reported resistance of AmpC producing bacteria to gentamicin (75%), ciprofloxacin (75%), amikacin (65%) and sulbactam-cefoperazone (32.5%) and none of strain was found resistant to meropenem.24 These finding suggest that imipenem and meropenem might be useful for the treatment of infections caused by AmpC β-lactamase producing organisms.
Thus meropenem, imipenem, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime and sulbactam-cefoperazone could be drugs of choice for treating AmpC β-lactamase producing E. coli infections. The burden of AmpC producing E. coli strains can be reduced by minimizing the use of invasive devices and strict adherence of antibiotic policy. Communication between the hospitals and the other health institutions regarding the prevalence of resistant bacteria, identifiable risk factors and controlled procedures can decrease the risk of AmpC β-lactamase producing bacteria.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are thankful to the Management and Ethical Committee of the Children’s Hospital & Institute of Child Health, Lahore, Pakistan for providing us all kind of facilities.
Authors Contribution:
Noor-ul-Ain Jameel : Conceived the study, performed experimental work and wrote the manuscript.
Hasan Ejaz: Data analysis and critically reviewed the manuscript for final publication.
Aizza Zafar: Provided the facilities for experiments and interpretation of results
Hafsa Amin: Helped in collection of isolates article drafting.
References
- 1.Livermore DM. Beta-lactamase mediated resistance and opportunities for its control. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1998;8(4):25–41. doi: 10.1093/jac/41.suppl_4.25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Jacoby GA. AmpC β-Lactamases. Clin Microbial Rev. 2009;22(1):161–182. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00036-08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Philippon A, Guillaume A, George A, Jacoby GA. Plasmid determined AmpC-Type β-Lactamases. Antimicrob Ag Chemother. 2002;46(1):1–11. doi: 10.1128/AAC.46.1.1-11.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bush K, Jacoby GA, Medeiros AA. A functional classification scheme for β-lactamases and its correlation with molecular structure. Antimicrob Ag Chemother. 1995;39(6):1211–1233. doi: 10.1128/aac.39.6.1211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Pitout J. Extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli: a combination of virulence with antibiotic resistance. Front Microbial. 2012;3(9):102–103. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Simmer J, Zhanel GG, Pitout J, Tailor F, McCracker M, Mulvey MR, et al. Prevalence and characterization of ESBL and AmpC β-lactamases producing E. coli. Diag Microb Infect Dis. 2011;69(3):326–332. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.10.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lucet JC, Chevret S, Decre D, Vanjak D, Macrez E, Bedos JP, et al. Outbreak of multiple resistances Enterobacteriaceae in an ICU epidemiology and risk factors for acquisition. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;22(3):430–436. doi: 10.1093/clinids/22.3.430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Schiappa DA, Hayden MK, Matusheke MG, Hasheme FN, Sullivan J, Smith KY et al. Ceftazidime resistance Klebsiella pneumoniae and E. coli bloodstream infections: a case control epidemiology investigation. J Infect Dis. 1996;174(3):529–536. doi: 10.1093/infdis/174.3.529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Gazouli M, Tzouvelekis LS, Vatopoulos AC, Tzelepi E. Transferable class C β-lactamases in Escherichia coli strains isolated in Greek hospitals and characterization of two enzyme variants (LAT-3 and LAT-4) closely related to Citrobacter freundii AmpC b-lactamase. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1998;42(4):419–442. doi: 10.1093/jac/42.4.419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Vandana KE, Honnavar P. AmpC beta lactamases among ESBL producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae- If you don’t look, you won’t find. J Clin Diag Res. 2009;3:1653–1656. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Yan JJ, Hsueh P, Lu J, Chang F, Shyr J, Wan JH, et al. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases and Plasmid-Mediated AmpC enzymes among clinical isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae from seven medical centers in Taiwan. Antimicrob Ag Chemother. 2006;50(5):1861–1864. doi: 10.1128/AAC.50.5.1861-1864.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Cheesbrough M. District laboratory practice in tropical countries. United Kingdom: Cambridge University press; 2000. pp. 124–143. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility tests. 20th ed. Vol. 30. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2010. approved standard, CLSI document M100-S20. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Yagi T, Wachino J, Kurokawa H, Suzuki S, Yamane K, Doi Y, et al. Practical methods using boronic acid compounds for identification of class C β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43(6):2551–2558. doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.6.2551-2558.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ding H, Yang Y, Lu Q, Wang Y, Chen Y, Deng L, et al. The prevalence of plasmid-mediated AmpC β-lactamases among clinical isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae from five children’s hospitals in China. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;27(10):915–921. doi: 10.1007/s10096-008-0532-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Mulvey MR, Bryce E, Boyd DA, Ofner-Agostini ML, Simor AE, et al. Molecular characterization of cefoxitin resistant Escherichia coli from Canadian hospitals. Antimicrob Ag Chemother. 2005;49(1):358–365. doi: 10.1128/AAC.49.1.358-365.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Jackson LA, Benson P, Neuzil KM, Grandjean M, Marino JL. Burden of community-onset Escherichia coli bacteremia in seniors. J Infect Dis. 2005;191(9):1523–1529. doi: 10.1086/429344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Pai H, Kang C, Byeon J, Lee K, Park WB, Kim H et al. Epidemiology and clinical features of bloodstream infections caused by AmpC Type β-Lactamase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Ag Chemother. 2004;48(10):3720–3728. doi: 10.1128/AAC.48.10.3720-3728.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Park SD, Uh Y, Lee G, Lim K, Kim JB, Jeong SH. Prevalence and resistance patterns of extended-spectrum and AmpC β-lactamase in Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, and Salmonella serovar stanley in a Korean tertiary hospital. APMIS. 2010;118(10):801–808. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2010.02663.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Martinez-Martinez L, Conejo MC, Pascual A, Hernandez-Alles S, Ballesta S, Arellano-Ramos E, et al. Activities of imipenem and cephalosporins against clonally related strains of Escherichia coli hyper producing chromosomal β-lactamases and showing altered porin profiles. Antimicrob Ag Chemother. 2000;44(9):2534–2536. doi: 10.1128/aac.44.9.2534-2536.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Courpon-Claudinon A, Lefort A, Panhard X, Clermont O, Dornic Q, Fantin B, et al. Bacterimia caused by third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli in France: prevalence, molecular epidemiology and clinical features. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011;17(4):557–565. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03298.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Baudry PJ, Nichol K, DeCorby M, Mataseje L, Mulvey MR, Hoban DJ, et al. Comparison of antimicrobial resistance profiles among Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase producing and Acquired AmpC beta-Lactamase producing Escherichia coli Isolates from Canadian Intensive Care Units. Antimicrob Ag Chemother. 2008;52(5):1846–1849. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01176-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Yamasaki K, Komatsu M, Abe N, Fukuda S, Miyamoto Y, Higuchi T, et al. Laboratory surveillance for prospective plasmid-mediated AmpC beta-lactamases in the Kinki region of Japan. J Clin Microb. 2010;48(9):3267–3273. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02111-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hassan A, Usman J, Kaleem F, Omair M, Khalid A, Iqbal M. Frequency and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of AmpC β-lactamase producing bacteria isolated from a tertiary care hospital of Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci. 2011;27(3):579–580. [Google Scholar]