CONTEXT: One of the important sources of Staphylococci which causes nosocomial infections, is the nasal carriage of Staphylococci among Health Care Workers (HCWs). The commonest antibiotic which is preferred for the treatment of the methicillin and multi drug resistant Staphylococcal infections is clindamycin. The inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococci is not detected by the routine antibiotic susceptibility testing and it results in treatment failures. AIM: The present study was undertaken to know the prevalence of constitutive and inducible clindamycin resistance and its correlation with the methicillin resistance among the nasal isolates of Staphylococci which were obtained from different HCWs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nasal swabs were collected from 206 HCWs and they were processed. The Staphylococci which were isolated were tested for methicillin resistance by using cefoxitin (30 μg) discs. The inducible clindamycin resistance was tested by using erythromycin (15 μg) and clindamycin (2μg) discs and the D test according to the CLSI guidelines. RESULTS: Inducible clindamycin resistance was seen in 21(16.40%) of the S.aureus and 14 (7.56%) of the coagulase negative Staphylococcal isolates. Constitutive clindamycin resistance was seen in 23(17.96%) of the S.aureus and 43(23.24%) of the coagulase negative Staphylococcal isolates. The inducible and constitutive clindamycin resistance was more common among the methicillin resistant Staphylococcal isolates. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of inducible and constitutive clindamycin resistance in the nasal Staphylococcal isolates which were obtained from the HCWs was high, especially among the methicillin resistant Staphylococci. The D test which is recommended by the CLSI should be routinely done to detect inducible clindamycin resistance, to prevent treatment failures.
CONTEXT: One of the important sources of Staphylococci which causes nosocomial infections, is the nasal carriage of Staphylococci among Health Care Workers (HCWs). The commonest antibiotic which is preferred for the treatment of the methicillin and multi drug resistant Staphylococcal infections is clindamycin. The inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococci is not detected by the routine antibiotic susceptibility testing and it results in treatment failures. AIM: The present study was undertaken to know the prevalence of constitutive and inducible clindamycin resistance and its correlation with the methicillin resistance among the nasal isolates of Staphylococci which were obtained from different HCWs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nasal swabs were collected from 206 HCWs and they were processed. The Staphylococci which were isolated were tested for methicillin resistance by using cefoxitin (30 μg) discs. The inducible clindamycin resistance was tested by using erythromycin (15 μg) and clindamycin (2μg) discs and the D test according to the CLSI guidelines. RESULTS: Inducible clindamycin resistance was seen in 21(16.40%) of the S.aureus and 14 (7.56%) of the coagulase negative Staphylococcal isolates. Constitutive clindamycin resistance was seen in 23(17.96%) of the S.aureus and 43(23.24%) of the coagulase negative Staphylococcal isolates. The inducible and constitutive clindamycin resistance was more common among the methicillin resistant Staphylococcal isolates. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of inducible and constitutive clindamycin resistance in the nasal Staphylococcal isolates which were obtained from the HCWs was high, especially among the methicillin resistant Staphylococci. The D test which is recommended by the CLSI should be routinely done to detect inducible clindamycin resistance, to prevent treatment failures.
Entities:
Keywords:
D test; Inducible clindamycin resistance; MLSB; Methicillin resistance; Staphylococci
Authors: Hong Bin Kim; Hee-Chang Jang; Hee Jung Nam; Yeong Seon Lee; Bong Su Kim; Wan Beom Park; Ki Deok Lee; Young Joo Choi; Sang Won Park; Myoung-Don Oh; Eui-Chong Kim; Kang Won Choe Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Alfonso Maria Ponsiglione; Carlo Ricciardi; Arianna Scala; Antonella Fiorillo; Alfonso Sorrentino; Maria Triassi; Giovanni Dell'Aversana Orabona; Giovanni Improta Journal: J Healthc Eng Date: 2021-08-17 Impact factor: 2.682