Quantitative analysis and virulence phenotypes of atypical enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) acquired from diarrheal stool samples from a Midwest US hospital

Infectious diarrhea causes approximately 179 million illnesses annually in the US. Multiplex PCR assays for enteric pathogens detect enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) in 12-29% of diarrheal stool samples from all age groups in developed nations. The aim of this study was to isolate and characterize EPEC from diarrhea samples identified as EPEC positive by BioFire Gastrointestinal Panel (GIP). EPEC is the second most common GIP-detected pathogen, equally present in sole and mixed infections peaking during summer months. EPEC bacterial load is higher in samples with additional pathogens. EPEC-GIP-positive stool samples were cultured on MacConkey II agar and analyzed by colony PCR for eaeA and bfpA to identify and classify EPEC isolates as typical (tEPEC) or atypical (aEPEC). EPEC were not recovered from the majority of stool samples with only 61 isolates obtained from 277 samples; most were aEPEC from adults. bfpA-mRNA was severely diminished in 3 of 4 bfpA-positive isolates. HeLa and SKCO-15 epithelial cells were infected with EPEC isolates and virulence-associated phenotypes, including adherence pattern, attachment level, pedestal formation, and tight junction disruption, were assessed. All aEPEC adherence patterns were represented with diffuse adherence predominating. Attachment rates of isolates adhering with defined adherence patterns were higher than tEPEC lacking bfpA (ΔbfpA). The majority of isolates formpedestals. All but one isolate initially increases but ultimately decreases transepithelial electrical resistance of SKCO-15 monolayers, similar to ΔbfpA. Most isolates severely disrupt occludin; ZO-1 disruption is variable. Most aEPEC isolates induce more robust virulence-phenotypes in vitro than ΔbfpA, but less than tEPEC-E2348/69.

In vitro activity of oritavancin alone or in combination against vancomycin-susceptible and -resistant enterococci

OBJECTIVES

The optimal treatment for serious infections due to Enterococcus spp. is unknown although combination antimicrobial therapy is often recommended for invasive infections to achieve bactericidal activity and improve clinical outcomes. Oritavancin is a novel lipoglycopeptide agent with in vitro activity against enterococci, including vancomycin-resistant VanA-type Enterococcus faecium. Data on its activity in combination with other antibacterials are limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the activity of oritavancin alone and in combination with ceftriaxone, daptomycin, gentamicin, linezolid and rifampicin against vancomycin-susceptible and -resistant enterococci in in vitro time-kill analyses.

METHODS

Five enterococcal strains were used for all experiments: three vancomycin-resistant VanA-type E. faecium clinical bloodstream isolates, vancomycin-resistant VanA-type E. faecium ATCC 700221 and vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212. Individual drugs were tested at ¼, ½, 1, 2 and 4× MIC. Oritavancin combination experiments were performed with each agent at ¼× MIC.

RESULTS

Daptomycin was the most active single agent and was bactericidal against all strains at 4× MIC, followed by oritavancin, which was bactericidal against all three clinical VRE strains at ≥2× MIC. In combination experiments at ¼× MIC, oritavancin was synergistic with gentamicin against strains not displaying high-level aminoglycoside resistance. No other synergy against VRE strains was observed in any experiment. Strain- and drug-dependent antagonism was observed for many combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

These in vitro data do not support the routine use of combination therapy with oritavancin in the treatment of infections due to VRE.

Performance of ceftazidime/avibactam susceptibility testing methods against clinically relevant Gram-negative organisms

OBJECTIVES

To ensure the accuracy of susceptibility testing methods for ceftazidime/avibactam.

METHODS

The performances of the Etest (bioMérieux), 30/20 μg disc (Hardy diagnostics) and 10/4 μg disc (Mast Group) were evaluated against the reference broth microdilution (BMD) method for 102 clinically relevant Gram-negative organisms: 69 ceftazidime- and meropenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and 33 MDR non-K. pneumoniae. Essential and categorical agreement along with major and very major error rates were determined according to CLSI guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 78% of isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime/avibactam. None of the three methods met the defined equivalency threshold against all 102 organisms. The Etest performed the best, with categorical agreement of 95% and major errors of 6.3%. Against the 69 ceftazidime- and meropenem-resistant K. pneumoniae, only the Etest and the 10/4 μg disc met the equivalency threshold. None of the three methods met equivalency for the 33 MDR isolates. There were no very major errors observed in any analysis. These results were pooled with those from a previous study of 74 carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and data from the ceftazidime/avibactam new drug application to define optimal 30/20 μg disc thresholds using the error-rate bound model-based approaches of the diffusion breakpoint estimation testing software. This analysis identified a susceptibility threshold of ≤19 mm as optimal.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that the Etest is a suitable alternative to BMD for testing ceftazidime/avibactam against ceftazidime- and meropenem-resistant K. pneumoniae. The 30/20 μg discs overestimate resistance and may lead to the use of treatment regimens that are more toxic and less effective.