Next Article in Journal
Trends in Outpatient Prescribing Patterns for Ocular Topical Anti-Infectives in Six Major Areas of China, 2013–2019
Next Article in Special Issue
Old and New Beta-Lactamase Inhibitors: Molecular Structure, Mechanism of Action, and Clinical Use
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Delivery Methods in Phage Therapy against Flavobacterium columnare Infections in Rainbow Trout
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 10
Issue 8
10.3390/antibiotics10080915
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Determination of a Tentative Epidemiological Cut-Off Value (ECOFF) for Dalbavancin and Enterococcus faecium

by
Robert E. Weber
1,
Carola Fleige
1,
Franziska Layer
1,
Bernd Neumann
1,†,
Michael Kresken
2,3 and
Guido Werner
1,*
1
National Reference Centre (NRC) for Staphylococci and Enterococci, Division of Nosocomial Pathogens and Antibiotic Resistances, Department of Infectious Diseases, Robert Koch Institute, Wernigerode Branch, 38855 Wernigerode, Germany
2
Antiinfectives Intelligence, 51105 Cologne, Germany
3
University of Applied Sciences, 50968 Cologne, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Present address: Institute for Clinical Hygiene, Medical Microbiology and Clinical Infectiology, University Institute of the Paracelsus Medical Private University, Hospital Nuremberg, 90419 Nuremberg, Germany.
Antibiotics 2021, 10(8), 915; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10080915
Submission received: 22 June 2021 / Revised: 21 July 2021 / Accepted: 22 July 2021 / Published: 27 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antibiotic Use in Clinical Infection: How to Reinvent Old Molecules and How to Squeeze Out New Ones)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Dalbavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic that shows potent activity against Gram-positive bacteria. It circumvents vanB-type glycopeptide resistance mechanisms; however, data on the in vitro activity of dalbavancin for Enterococcus faecium (E. faecium) are scarce, and thus, no breakpoints are provided. In recent years, there has been a continuing shift from vanA-type to vanB-type vancomycin-resistance in enterococci in Central Europe. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the in vitro activity of dalbavancin against different van-genotypes, with particular focus on vanB-type E. faecium. Dalbavancin susceptibility was determined for 25 van-negative, 50 vanA-positive, and 101 vanB-positive clinical E. faecium isolates (typed by cgMLST). Epidemiological Cut-Off Values (ECOFFs) were determined using ECOFFinder. For vanB-type E. faecium isolates, dalbavancin MICs were similar to those of vancomycin-susceptible isolates reaching values no higher than 0.125 mg/L. ECOFFs for van-negative and vanB-positive isolates were 0.5 mg/l and 0.25 mg/L respectively. In contrast, E. faecium possessing vanA predominantly showed dalbavancin MICs >8 mg/L, therefore preventing the determination of an ECOFF. We demonstrated the potent in vitro activity of dalbavancin against vancomycin-susceptible and vanB-type E. faecium. On the basis of the observed wildtype distribution, a dalbavancin MIC of 0.25 mg/L can be suggested as a tentative ECOFF for E. faecium.

1. Introduction

Enterococci are intestinal commensals in many animals and humans. However, few members of this genus are also important nosocomial pathogens that are capable of causing severe infections in critically ill and immunocompromised patients. In particular, Enterococcus faecium isolates have received increased public health attention due to a dramatic increase of related infections and the accumulation of antibiotic resistance determinants [1]. The European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net) has shown an overall increasing trend in the proportion of vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE = E. faecium) over the last few years [2,3]. However, no distinct geographical patterns could be observed across Europe, and even in countries with similar VRE rates, trends may differ with regard to the dissemination of different strain backgrounds and van genotype dynamics. Countries such as Denmark and Switzerland showed rising VRE trends, mainly due to an increased incidence of vanA-type E. faecium clonal types like ST203 and ST796 [4,5,6]. In contrast, other countries such as Germany and Poland reported a high prevalence of vanB-type resistance, which was preferably found among the E. faecium isolates of ST78 or ST117 [7,8,9].
Most VRE remain susceptible against last resort antibiotics such as linezolid, daptomycin (high dose), and tigecycline, but their use for patient treatment is constrained by several factors [10]. In addition to pharmacological and regulatory limitations, resistances to these novel antibacterials are increasingly reported [11,12,13,14,15]. In the case of vanB-type VRE, teicoplanin may be considered an effective treatment alternative. However, at least in Germany, the substance is not widely used, and published experience reports warn against the development of a resistance to teicoplanin under therapy [16].
For lipoglycopeptides such as telavancin, dalbavancin, and oritavancin, different in vitro activities against VRE have been published [17,18]. Oritavancin is the only lipoglycopeptide that is active against all VRE, regardless of the van-genotype that is present [19]. The antibiotic has been approved by the FDA and EMA for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSI) but is only available on request or as an import in Europe. Telavancin and dalbavancin seem to be only effective against vanB-type VRE. Additionally, telavancin has been approved for nosocomial and ventilator-associated pneumonias and as such, is not of interest as an VRE agent.
Dalbavancin (Xydalba®) is approved in several European countries, including Germany, for treating ABSSSI and has been included in a clinical trial to demonstrate its efficacy in the treatment of invasive infections such as infective endocarditis and complicated bacteremia. However, the trial was terminated, and the results have not yet been published (trial identifier: NCT03148756; study ID: DAL-MD-09).
With the present study, we investigated the in vitro activity of dalbavancin, especially against vanB-type VRE. Furthermore, we aimed to determine a tentative ECOFF for E. faecium isolates, since EUCAST provides neither an ECOFF for E. faecium nor distinguishes between vancomycin-susceptible enterococci (VSE) and VRE. Our re-assessment also considered that most of the available in vitro studies on dalbavancin efficacy are now more than 10 years old and contained only a few VRE strains, all of which were poorly characterized with respect to species identification and van-genotyping [20,21].
For the present study, we compiled a large, comprehensive collection of invasive clinical E. faecium isolates that contained both vancomycin-susceptible and vancomycin-resistant isolates of the vanA- and vanB-types. All isolates originated from submissions to the German National Reference Centre (NRC) for Enterococci between January 2018 and December 2019. The collection was geographically diverse and represented the most common clonal types and van genotypes in Germany. Dalbavancin MICs were determined using broth microdilution (BMD) and a commercial gradient strip test. Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) data were available for all of the strains included in this study.

2. Results

2.1. Molecular Typing of the Strain Collection

The strain collection contained a total of 101 vanB-positive, 50 vanA-positive, and 25 van-negative (vancomycin-susceptible) E. faecium isolates belonging to 16 MLST and 74 cgMLST types (Supplementary Table S1 and Figure S1). The most frequent MLST types were ST117 (n = 89; 50.6%) and ST80 (n = 36; 20.5%); the most frequent cgMLST types were CT71 (ST117) (n = 39; 22.2%) and CT894 (ST80) (n = 8; 4.5%) (Supplementary Figure S1).

2.2. Determination of Dalbavancin MICs by BMD Testing

Vancomycin-susceptible and van-negative E. faecium isolates (n = 25) demonstrated dalbavancin MIC50 and MIC90 values of 0.064 mg/L and 0.125 mg/L, respectively (Table 1). The ECOFF was 0.5 mg/L (Table 1, Figure 1A). Dalbavancin MICs of vanB-positive E. faecium isolates (n = 101) tended to be one dilution below from what could be determined for van-negative E. faecium isolates (MIC50 = 0.032 mg/L, MIC90 = 0.064 mg/L) (Table 1). The ECOFF for the vanB isolates was 0.25 mg/L (Table 1, Figure 1A). According to the CLSI breakpoint for E. faecalis (S ≤ 0.25), all van-negative and vanB-positive E. faecium isolates would be categorized as dalbavancin-susceptible. E. faecium possessing vanA (n = 50) demonstrating a MIC50 value of 8 mg/L and a MIC90 value of >8 mg/L (Table 1); thus, preventing the definition of an ECOFF. Of note, few vancomycin- and teicoplanin-resistant vanA-type VRE demonstrated dalbavancin MICs in the lower range of ≤0.5 mg/L (n = 6) (Figure 1A, Supplementary Table S1). Growth deficiencies in MH broth and a low resistance to teicoplanin (8 or 16 mg/L) were observed for almost all of these isolates, as can also be found for some of the now prevalent VRE isolates in Germany (based on experience at the NRC) (Supplementary Table S1). Dalbavancin-resistant and vanA-positive isolates generally showed vancomycin and teicoplanin MICs of >16 mg/L (Supplementary Table S1). A single vanA isolate that did not reveal growth deficiencies in MH broth was tested vancomycin- and teicoplanin-susceptible (MICs ≤ 1 mg/L) (Supplementary Table S1). This isolate demonstrated dalbavancin MICs of 0.125 and 0.064 mg/L when determined using BMD and MIC test strips, respectively (Supplementary Table S1). Detailed sequence analysis of the corresponding vanA gene cluster revealed a 5′ truncated vanX gene (data not shown). For isolates that showed deficiencies in growth behavior (n = 5), assessment of their vanA clusters did not reveal any genetic changes that could potentially be associated with this unusual phenotype. Prolonged incubation for up to 48 h produced dalbavancin MICs in the resistant range for four out of five isolates (Supplementary Table S1).

2.3. Determination of Dalbavancin MICs by MIC Gradient Strip Testing

For reasons of comparison and the determination of an ECOFF, we converted the MICs of MIC gradient strips into doubling dilution as found in BMD. Furthermore, MIC values of 16, 32 and >32 mg/L were downsized to a maximum of >8 mg/L (Supplementary Table S1). In case of deviations between the BMD and MIC Test Strips, the exact MICs are shown in brackets. Vancomycin-susceptible and van-negative E. faecium isolates (n = 25) demonstrated a MIC50 value of 0.032 mg/L and a MIC90 of 0.064 mg/L (Table 1). The ECOFF was 0.25 mg/L (Table 1, Figure 1B). Vancomycin-resistant and vanB-positive E. faecium isolates (n = 101) demonstrated a MIC50 value of 0.016 mg/L and a MIC90 of 0.032 mg/L (Table 1), which was one dilution step below that of van-negative E. faecium isolates. The ECOFF was 0.125 mg/L (Table 1, Figure 1B). All van-negative and vanB-positive E. faecium isolates revealed a gradient strip MICs of ≤0.25 mg/L (Figure 1B, Supplementary Table S1). E. faecium possessing vanA (n = 50) showed a MIC50 value of >8 mg/L (>32 mg/L) and a MIC90 of >8 mg/L (>32 mg/L) (Table 1), thus preventing the definition of an ECOFF. In accordance with results from BMD, few vancomycin- and teicoplanin-resistant vanA isolates demonstrated dalbavancin gradient strip MICs in the lower range of ≤0.5 mg/L (n = 4) (Figure 1B, Supplementary Table S1). Using the macro method (McFarland 2.0, BHI agar, 48 h incubation), only two vanA isolates demonstrated dalbavancin MICs ≤0.5 mg/L (Supplementary Table S1), one of which carried the truncated vanX gene (see above). Isolates showing growth within a defined inhibition zone were categorized as dalbavancin-resistant with a MIC >32 mg/L (Supplementary Figure S2, see discussion).

2.4. Comparing Results of Broth Microdilution and MIC Test Strips

Dalbavancin MICs derived from BMD and MIC gradient strip tests (BMD adapted MIC values) were in good overall concordance (Supplementary Figure S3). For van-negative and vanB-positive isolates, however, the MIC50/ MIC90 values of MIC gradient strips were slightly lower when compared to the BMD results (Table 1). Thus, the ECOFF was one doubling dilution higher when determined using BMD (Table 1). Irrespective of the testing method, all van-negative and all vanB-positive E. faecium isolates demonstrated MICs of ≤0.25 mg/L (CLSI breakpoint for E. faecalis). Dalbavancin MIC values for vanA-positive isolates ranged from ≤0.008 to >8 mg/L in BMD and 0.016 mg/L (0.012 mg/L) to >8 mg/L (>32 mg/L) for the MIC test strips (Supplementary Figure S3C). In contrast to BMD, the majority of the vanA-positive E. faecium isolates exhibited dalbavancin MIC values >8 mg/L (>32 mg/L) when determined using MIC gradient test strips (Supplementary Figure S3C).

3. Discussion

To identify a dalbavancin ECOFF for E. faecium, we determined the dalbavancin MICs for a total of 176 well-characterized, vancomycin-sensitive, vanA- or vanB-positive E. faecium isolates.
To date, available data on the in vitro efficacy of dalbavancin mainly come from complementary clinical studies [22,23,24,25,26]. However, within these studies, enterococci were hardly considered, and many of these studies have been conducted in the USA, where the majority of E. faecium infections is caused by vanA-type VRE. Since dalbavancin has no in vitro activity against vanA-carrying E. faecium, VRE data were not included in most clinical or registration trials. As a result, data on E. faecium are generally scarce, and knowledge about the in vitro activity of dalbavancin against different van genotypes is almost non-existent.
The determination of dalbavancin MICs is challenging for several reasons. First, all lipoglycopeptides show a facile adsorption to plastic surfaces [27]. The strength of the surface adhesion depends on the plastic material and thus on the type of microtiter plates used in the experiment. In order to prevent the depletion of the active substance from the test medium, the administration of polysorbate 80 (Tween 80) is essential. Second, readout of dalbavancin MICs can be challenging for BMD and MIC gradient strip tests because some clinical VRE strains may demonstrate growth deficiencies in standard media. This effect, in conjunction with an inducible resistance mechanism like VanA, can lead to delayed or weak growth in susceptibility tests. In BMD, this growth behavior is manifested by either very weak or diffuse colony growth when compared to the antibiotic-free growth control. For MIC gradient strip assays, the lack of growth leads to effects reminiscent of “heteroresistance”, which is detected either by microcolony growth in an otherwise clear inhibition zone (Supplementary Figure S2B) or a visible inhibition zone, but overall shaded growth within this zone (Supplementary Figure S2A). Third, dalbavancin is not available for the commercial test panels of automated systems, requiring manual handling, sample preparation, and readout.
The majority of the vanA-positive E. faecium isolates showed dalbavancin MICs of >8 mg/L (BMD) (Figure 1A, Supplementary Table S1). In contrast to vanB-type resistance, the regulatory system of vanA-positive VRE are sensitive to induction by teicoplanin and dalbavancin, resulting in the synthesis of modified peptidoglycan precursors and thus a resistance against all (lipo-) glycopeptides [28]. A few vanA-type VRE also revealed dalbavancin MICs in the lower range (≤0.5 mg/L) (Figure 1A, Supplementary Table S1). Similarly, data from a study by Zhanel et al. indicated a wide range of dalbavancin MICs for vanA-type E. faecium isolates reaching from 0.03 mg/L to >32 mg/L [17]. However, the authors did not address this aspect and did not provide any explanation as to whether and why dalbavancin might be active against some vanA-type isolates. Our research showed that five out of six vanA isolates with a dalbavancin MIC of ≤0.5 mg/L revealed weakened growth in MH broth. As such, it could be argued that more general growth deficiencies were responsible for the comparably low dalbavancin MICs. In case of a weakened growth, prolonged incubation of up to 48 h facilitated BMD MIC determination and prevented the detection of false-negative results (Supplementary Table S1). Similarly, a supplementation with 10% rich media such as BHI in combination with an increased inoculum (McFarland 2.0) and 48 h incubation period improved experimental outcomes when using MIC test strips (Supplementary Table S1). Both variations could be considered as a deviation from susceptibility testing guidelines and standards. Interestingly, one vanA isolate showed dalbavancin MICs in the susceptible range regardless of the method used, but no growth defect was observed (Supplementary Table S1). Subsequent in silico analysis revealed a trunked vanX gene, most probably leading to a non-functional VanX protein. VanX is essential for glycopeptide resistance because it degrades the d-Ala-d-Ala dipeptide into its individual components and thus prevents the formation of glycopeptide susceptible cell wall precursors.
The majority of published studies that have evaluated the in vitro activity of dalbavancin have focused either only on E. faecalis or did not distinguish between E. faecalis and E. faecium and/or the different van genotypes [21,29,30]. Therefore, these studies do not allow for a comparison with our data. With the beginning of the 2010s, however, several US medical centers presented results on the in vitro activity of dalbavancin for some E. faecium isolates, including VRE. A study conducted by Sader et al. included 30 E. faecium isolates, 18 of which carried the vanA gene. Of these, all but one isolate demonstrated a dalbavancin MIC of >4 mg/L [21]. Similarly, Jones and colleagues published a study on the potency profiles for dalbavancin and found that all included vanA-type enterococci (19 E. faecium, 6 E. faecalis) had dalbavancin MICs of ≥4 mg/L [20].
Due to the general prevalence of vanA-type resistance in clinical E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates for many years, comprehensive data on dalbavancin resistance in vanB-type enterococci are generally scarce [17,20,21,30]. A recently performed and yet unpublished study determined the dalbavancin MICs of clinical VRE isolates (including vanA- and vanB-type E. faecium) (Kresken et al., unpublished). Similar to our study, the MIC50 and MIC90 values for vanB isolates were 0.06 mg/L and 0.125 mg/L, respectively. For the vanA-positive isolates, the MIC50 was 8 mg/L, and the MIC90 was >8 mg/L. All of the vanB strains possessed dalbavancin MICs of ≤0.25 mg/L, and all vanA isolates revealed dalbavancin MICs of ≥4 mg/L.
In conclusion, we determined dalbavancin MICs for the largest and best-described strain collection of clinical E. faecium isolates, comprising both vancomycin-susceptible and vancomycin-resistant isolates of the vanA- and vanB-types. Results are reliable and consistent across different methodologies when dalbavancin susceptibility testing is performed according to the recommended guidelines. Based on the here provided and recently published data, we suggest a tentative dalbavancin ECOFF of 0.25 mg/L or a breakpoint of S ≤ 0.25 mg/L for E. faecium. Using this ECOFF or breakpoint, van-negative and vanB-positive E. faecium isolates would be considered dalbavancin-susceptible, while most vanA-type VRE, with the exception of a few, would be categorized as dalbavancin-resistant.

4. Materials and Methods

Strain collection. Within the present study, we included 176 clinical E. faecium isolates collected between January 2018 and December 2019 (Supplementary Table S1). All of the isolates derived from cases of bacteremia/blood stream infections and were submitted from clinical diagnostic laboratories to the NRC.
Susceptibility testing. We assessed susceptibilities to vancomycin and teicoplanin using BMD. Testing was performed according to EUCAST guidelines. EUCAST v8 and v9 standards were applied to categorize the MIC data into susceptible (S) and resistant (R). The MIC of dalbavancin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was determined by BMD using cation-adjusted Mueller–Hinton broth (Becton-Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany) as described recently [18]. Deviating from this procedure, microdilution panels contained serial 2-fold dilutions of dalbavancin ranging from 8 to 0.008 mg/L. In order to alleviate adherence of the dalbavancin to the plastic surfaces of microtiter plates (Greiner Bio-One, Frickenhausen, Germany), the solution contained a final concentration of 0.002% polysorbate 80 (Tween 80; Sigma-Aldrich/Merck, Taufkirchen, Germany). In addition to BMD testing, the dalbavancin MICs were determined through a MIC gradient strip test on MH agar (Becton-Dickinson) according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Liofilchem, Roseto degli Abruzzi, Italy (http://www.liofilchem.net/login.area.mic/technical_sheets/MTS38.pdf, accessed on 22 June 2021). For reasons of comparison, we also applied the macro method using a higher inoculum of McFarland 2.0, Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) agar and a prolonged incubation time of up to 48 h before readout. Since EUCAST does not provide a clinical breakpoint or an ECOFF for dalbavancin, we compared our MIC data with the CLSI breakpoint provided for E. faecalis (S ≤ 0.25 mg/L). Reference isolates were S. aureus ATCC29213 and E. faecalis ATCC29212.
Determination of ECOFFs. ECOFFs were determined through the use of ECOFFinder [31]. A threshold of 99% was chosen (MIC value that captures 99% of the modelled wild-type population) to increase the specificity for the wild-type population.
Determination of van genotypes. As part of the daily routine, the van genotypes were assessed by multiplex PCR as described recently [32] and verified through in vitro susceptibility testing to vancomycin and teicoplanin. Additionally, van-genotypes were derived from de novo assembled read-data (see next paragraph).
NGS-based analysis. At the NRC for Enterococci, all isolates from bacteremia and sepsis are routinely sequenced using NGS. Whole genome sequencing was conducted in paired-end mode using the NextSeq 550 workflow with a read length of 2 × 150 bp (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). The quality of the raw sequence data was checked using FastQC v0.11.5 [33]. Taxonomic read classification was verified by Kraken v0.10.6 [34]. For the purpose of genome reconstruction, Illumina reads were de novo assembled using SPAdes with default parameters [35]. BWA-MEM was used for assembly-remapping and -polishing [36]. MLST and cgMLST were performed with de novo assembled contigs and Ridom SeqSphere+ v6.0.0 (Ridom; Münster, Germany). De novo assembled contigs were screened for vanA or vanB using BLAST [37]. Corresponding contigs were annotated using a customized database of relevant sequences (vanR, vanS, vanH, vanA and vanX) and aligned through the use of MAFFT and Geneious Prime v2020.2.3 [38].

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics10080915/s1, Figure S1: Distribution of clonal lineages according to MLST for van-negative, vanB- and vanA-positive E. faecium isolates, Figure S2: Exemplary illustration of dalbavancin MIC determination by the use of MIC Test Strips, Figure S3: Concordance of dalbavancin MICs obtained by BMD and MIC test strips, Table S1: Details on the strain collection.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K. and G.W.; data curation, R.E.W.; investigation, R.E.W. and C.F.; methodology, R.E.W. and C.F.; visualization, R.E.W.; writing—original draft, R.E.W.; writing—review and editing, R.E.W.; C.F.; F.L.; B.N.; M.K. and G.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by a grant from the Federal Ministry for Health, Germany, to G.W. for the work done in association with the National Reference Centre.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Raw reads datasets generated for this study can be found in the European Nucleotide Archive (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena; study accession number: PRJEB43771, accessed on 26 July 2021).

Acknowledgments

We highly acknowledge excellent technical assistance from Christine Günther, Birgit Pasemann, Petra Vilbrandt, and Annette Weller for standard laboratory determinations. We are thankful to the Sequencing Core Facility (MF2; Andrea Thürmer, Aleks Radonic) at the Robert Koch Institute for performing the NGS and of the Bioinformatics Core Unit (MF1; Stephan Fuchs). A special thanks to all collaborating laboratories for sending the E. faecium isolates from bacteremia and sepsis to our National Reference Centre. The work was executed under the auspices of the Working Party “Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and Resistance” of the Paul-Ehrlich-Society for Chemotherapy.

Conflicts of Interest

M.K. is a partner and CEO of Antiinfectives Intelligence GmbH, a research organization providing services to pharmaceutical companies. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Kramer, T.S.; Remschmidt, C.; Werner, S.; Behnke, M.; Schwab, F.; Werner, G.; Gastmeier, P.; Leistner, R. The importance of adjusting for enterococcus species when assessing the burden of vancomycin resistance: A cohort study including over 1000 cases of enterococcal bloodstream infections. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2018, 7, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance in Europe 2018; ECDC: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayobami, O.; Willrich, N.; Reuss, A.; Eckmanns, T.; Markwart, R. The ongoing challenge of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis in Europe: An epidemiological analysis of bloodstream infections. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2020, 9, 1180–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Buetti, N.; Wassilew, N.; Rion, V.; Senn, L.; Gardiol, C.; Widmer, A.; Marschall, J. Emergence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in Switzerland: A nation-wide survey. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2019, 8, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Hammerum, A.M.; Justesen, U.S.; Pinholt, M.; Roer, L.; Kaya, H.; Worning, P.; Nygaard, S.; Kemp, M.; Clausen, M.E.; Nielsen, K.L.; et al. Surveillance of vancomycin-resistant enterococci reveals shift in dominating clones and national spread of a vancomycin-variable vanA Enterococcus faecium ST1421-CT1134 clone, Denmark, 2015 to March 2019. Eurosurveillance 2019, 24, 1900503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Hoffmann, M.; Yao, K.; Allard, M.; Sanchez, M.; Andersen, L.P.; Hasman, H.; Hammerum, A.M. Complete Genome Sequence of a Vancomycin-Resistant Sequence Type 203 Enterococcus faecium Strain with vanA Belonging to Complex Type 859. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 2018, 7, e00815-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Eisenberger, D.; Tuschak, C.; Werner, M.; Bogdan, C.; Bollinger, T.; Hossain, H.; Friedrich, P.; Hussein, Z.; Pohlmann, C.; Wurstl, B.; et al. Whole-genome analysis of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium causing nosocomial outbreaks suggests the occurrence of few endemic clonal lineages in Bavaria, Germany. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, 1398–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Falgenhauer, L.; Fritzenwanker, M.; Imirzalioglu, C.; Steul, K.; Scherer, M.; Rhine-Main, V.s.g.; Heudorf, U.; Chakraborty, T. Near-ubiquitous presence of a vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium ST117/CT71/vanB -clone in the Rhine-Main metropolitan area of Germany. Antimicrob Resist. Infect. Control. 2019, 8, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Sadowy, E.; Gawryszewska, I.; Kuch, A.; Żabicka, D.; Hryniewicz, W. The changing epidemiology of VanB Enterococcus faecium in Poland. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2018, 37, 927–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Mischnik, A.; Werner, G.; Bender, J.; Mutters, N.T. Enterococci With Special Resistance Patterns—Epidemiology, Hygiene and Therapy. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 2019, 144, 553–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bender, J.K.; Cattoir, V.; Hegstad, K.; Sadowy, E.; Coque, T.M.; Westh, H.; Hammerum, A.M.; Schaffer, K.; Burns, K.; Murchan, S.; et al. Update on prevalence and mechanisms of resistance to linezolid, tigecycline and daptomycin in enterococci in Europe: Towards a common nomenclature. Drug Resist. Updates 2018, 40, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Klare, I.; Bender, J.K.; Markwart, R.; Reuss, A.; Abu SIn, M.; Eckmanns, T.; Werner, G. Properties, frequencies and distribution of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in Germany—Update 2017/2018. Epidemiol. Bull. 2019, 37, 365–372. (In German) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Klare, I.; Fleige, C.; Geringer, U.; Thurmer, A.; Bender, J.; Mutters, N.T.; Mischnik, A.; Werner, G. Increased frequency of linezolid resistance among clinical Enterococcus faecium isolates from German hospital patients. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2015, 3, 128–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bender, J.K.; Klare, I.; Fleige, C.; Werner, G. A Nosocomial Cluster of Tigecycline- and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Isolates and the Impact of rpsJ and tet(M) Mutations on Tigecycline Resistance. Microb. Drug Resist. 2020, 26, 576–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fiedler, S.; Bender, J.K.; Klare, I.; Halbedel, S.; Grohmann, E.; Szewzyk, U.; Werner, G. Tigecycline resistance in clinical isolates of Enterococcus faecium is mediated by an upregulation of plasmid-encoded tetracycline determinants tet(L) and tet(M). J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2016, 71, 871–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Holmes, N.E.; Ballard, S.A.; Lam, M.M.; Johnson, P.D.; Grayson, M.L.; Stinear, T.P.; Howden, B.P. Genomic analysis of teicoplanin resistance emerging during treatment of vanB vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium infections in solid organ transplant recipients including donor-derived cases. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2013, 68, 2134–2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Zhanel, G.G.; Calic, D.; Schweizer, F.; Zelenitsky, S.; Adam, H.; Lagacé-Wiens, P.R.; Rubinstein, E.; Gin, A.S.; Hoban, D.J.; Karlowsky, J.A. New lipoglycopeptides: A comparative review of dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin. Drugs 2010, 70, 859–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Arhin, F.F.; Belley, A.; McKay, G.A.; Moeck, G. Characterization of the in vitro activity of novel lipoglycopeptide antibiotics. Curr. Protoc. Microbiol. 2010, 16, 17.1.1–17.1.22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rosenthal, S.; Decano, A.G.; Bandali, A.; Lai, D.; Malat, G.E.; Bias, T.E. Oritavancin (Orbactiv): A New-Generation Lipoglycopeptide for the Treatment Of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections. Pharm. Ther. 2018, 43, 143–179. [Google Scholar]
  20. Jones, R.N.; Flamm, R.K.; Sader, H.S. Surveillance of dalbavancin potency and spectrum in the United States (2012). Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2013, 76, 122–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Sader, H.S.; Mendes, R.E.; Pfaller, M.A.; Flamm, R.K. Antimicrobial activity of dalbavancin tested against Gram-positive organisms isolated from patients with infective endocarditis in US and European medical centres. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 1306–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Raad, I.; Darouiche, R.; Vazquez, J.; Lentnek, A.; Hachem, R.; Hanna, H.; Goldstein, B.; Henkel, T.; Seltzer, E. Efficacy and safety of weekly dalbavancin therapy for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by gram-positive pathogens. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2005, 40, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Morata, L.; Cobo, J.; Fernandez-Sampedro, M.; Vasco, P.G.; Ruano, E.; Lora-Tamayo, J.; Somolinos, M.S.; Ruano, P.G.; Nieto, A.R.; Arnaiz, A.; et al. Safety and Efficacy of Prolonged Use of Dalbavancin in Bone and Joint Infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, e02280-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, R.; Li, Y.; Cai, Y. Efficacy and safety of dalbavancin in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 24, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rappo, U.; Puttagunta, S.; Shevchenko, V.; Shevchenko, A.; Jandourek, A.; Gonzalez, P.L.; Suen, A.; Casullo, V.M.; Melnick, D.; Miceli, R.; et al. Dalbavancin for the Treatment of Osteomyelitis in Adult Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy and Safety. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2019, 6, ofy331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Biedenbach, D.J.; Bell, J.M.; Sader, H.S.; Turnidge, J.D.; Jones, R.N. Activities of dalbavancin against a worldwide collection of 81,673 gram-positive bacterial isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 53, 1260–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Kavanagh, A.; Ramu, S.; Gong, Y.; Cooper, M.A.; Blaskovich, M.A.T. Effects of Microplate Type and Broth Additives on Microdilution MIC Susceptibility Assays. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, e01760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Cetinkaya, Y.; Falk, P.; Mayhall, C.G. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2000, 13, 686–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Pfaller, M.A.; Flamm, R.K.; Castanheira, M.; Sader, H.S.; Mendes, R.E. Dalbavancin in-vitro activity obtained against Gram-positive clinical isolates causing bone and joint infections in US and European hospitals (2011–2016). Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2018, 51, 608–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pfaller, M.A.; Mendes, R.E.; Sader, H.S.; Castanheira, M.; Flamm, R.K. Activity of dalbavancin tested against Gram-positive clinical isolates causing skin and skin-structure infections in paediatric patients from US hospitals (2014–2015). J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2017, 11, 4–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Turnidge, J.; Kahlmeter, G.; Kronvall, G. Statistical characterisation of bacterial wild-type MIC value distributions and the determination of epidemiological cut-off values. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2006, 12, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Klare, I.; Konstabel, C.; Mueller-Bertling, S.; Werner, G.; Strommenger, B.; Kettlitz, C.; Borgmann, S.; Schulte, B.; Jonas, D.; Serr, A.; et al. Spread of ampicillin/vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium of the epidemic-virulent clonal complex-17 carrying the genes esp and hyl in German hospitals. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2005, 24, 815–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Andrews, S.; Krueger, S.; Segonds-Pichon, F.; Biggins, L.; Krueger, C.; Wingett, S. FastQC: A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data; Babraham Institute: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wood, D.E.; Salzberg, S.L. Kraken: Ultrafast metagenomic sequence classification using exact alignments. Genome Biol. 2014, 15, R46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Bankevich, A.; Nurk, S.; Antipov, D.; Gurevich, A.A.; Dvorkin, M.; Kulikov, A.S.; Lesin, V.M.; Nikolenko, S.I.; Pham, S.; Prjibelski, A.D.; et al. SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 2012, 19, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Li, H.; Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 1754–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Camacho, C.; Coulouris, G.; Avagyan, V.; Ma, N.; Papadopoulos, J.; Bealer, K.; Madden, T.L. BLAST+: Architecture and applications. BMC Bioinform. 2009, 10, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Katoh, K.; Standley, D.M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 772–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Antibiotics 10 00915 g001 550
Figure 1. Distribution of dalbavancin MICs. MICs were obtained for 25 vancomycin-susceptible, 50 vanA-positive, and 101 vanB-positive E. faecium isolates using BMD (A) and MIC test strips (B). The number of isolates with corresponding MICs is given in %. Gradient strip MICs were both extrapolated to the next double dilution value equivalent to values for BMD and downsized to a maximum of >8 mg/L. The MIC breakpoint for dalbavancin for E. faecalis according to CLSI is ≤0.25 mg/L.
Figure 1. Distribution of dalbavancin MICs. MICs were obtained for 25 vancomycin-susceptible, 50 vanA-positive, and 101 vanB-positive E. faecium isolates using BMD (A) and MIC test strips (B). The number of isolates with corresponding MICs is given in %. Gradient strip MICs were both extrapolated to the next double dilution value equivalent to values for BMD and downsized to a maximum of >8 mg/L. The MIC breakpoint for dalbavancin for E. faecalis according to CLSI is ≤0.25 mg/L.
Antibiotics 10 00915 g001
Table
Table 1. Distribution of dalbavancin MICs for E. faecium isolates (n = 176). MIC gradient strip values were converted into doubling dilution as found in BMD, and values of 16, 32, and >32 mg/L were downsized to >8 mg/L (maximum measurable value by BMD).
Table 1. Distribution of dalbavancin MICs for E. faecium isolates (n = 176). MIC gradient strip values were converted into doubling dilution as found in BMD, and values of 16, 32, and >32 mg/L were downsized to >8 mg/L (maximum measurable value by BMD).
Genotype/MethodnMIC [mg/L]MIC50
[mg/L]		MIC90
[mg/L]		ECOFF *
[99%]		CLSI **
[% S]
≤0.080.0160.0320.0640.1250.250.51248>8
vanA, BMD501 1 3 1 121228>8-10
vanA, strip50 11111 45>8>8-8
vanB, BMD1011664273 0.0320.0640.25100
vanB, strip101645446 0.0160.0320.125100
van-, BMD25 36115 0.0640.1250.5100
van-, strip25 6117 1 0.0320.0640.25100
Legend: BMD, broth microdilution; strip, MIC gradient strip test. The vertical line indicates the CLSI breakpoint for E. faecalis. * ECOFFs were identified by the use ECOFFinder (EUCAST). ** We applied the susceptibility breakpoint for vancomycin-susceptible E. faecalis as provided CLSI.3.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Weber, R.E.; Fleige, C.; Layer, F.; Neumann, B.; Kresken, M.; Werner, G. Determination of a Tentative Epidemiological Cut-Off Value (ECOFF) for Dalbavancin and Enterococcus faecium. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10080915

AMA Style

Weber RE, Fleige C, Layer F, Neumann B, Kresken M, Werner G. Determination of a Tentative Epidemiological Cut-Off Value (ECOFF) for Dalbavancin and Enterococcus faecium. Antibiotics. 2021; 10(8):915. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10080915

Chicago/Turabian Style

Weber, Robert E., Carola Fleige, Franziska Layer, Bernd Neumann, Michael Kresken, and Guido Werner. 2021. "Determination of a Tentative Epidemiological Cut-Off Value (ECOFF) for Dalbavancin and Enterococcus faecium" Antibiotics 10, no. 8: 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10080915

APA Style

Weber, R. E., Fleige, C., Layer, F., Neumann, B., Kresken, M., & Werner, G. (2021). Determination of a Tentative Epidemiological Cut-Off Value (ECOFF) for Dalbavancin and Enterococcus faecium. Antibiotics, 10(8), 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10080915

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop