Open Access

In vitro activity effects of combinations of cephalothin, dicloxacillin, imipenem, vancomycin and amikacin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. strains

  • Guadalupe Miranda-Novales1Email author,
  • Blanca E Leaños-Miranda1,
  • Mariano Vilchis-Pérez2 and
  • Fortino Solórzano-Santos2
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials20065:25

https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-0711-5-25

Received: 11 July 2006

Accepted: 12 October 2006

Published: 12 October 2006

Abstract

Background

combinations of drugs has been proposed as an alternative for oxacillin-resistant staphylococci infections, however, limited information about in vitro combinations are available for multi-resistant strains. The objective of this study was to describe the interaction of beta-lactams in combination with vancomycin or amikacin against 26 oxacillin and amikacin-resistant nosocomial Staphylococcus spp. isolates.

Methods

activity of dicloxacillin plus amikacin, cephalothin plus amikacin, cephalothin plus vancomycin, imipenem plus vancomycin and vancomycin plus amikacin was evaluated by checkerboard synergy tests and the fractional inhibitory concentration index (FIC) was calculated. Results: dicloxacillin plus amikacin, and cephalothin plus amikacin were synergistic or partially synergistic in 84.6% and 100% respectively. For nearly half of the isolates the mean concentrations of dicloxacillin, cephalothin and amikacin at which FIC indexes were calculated were achievable therapeutically. Vancomycin plus amikacin had synergistic effect only against two isolates, and partially synergistic in 38.6%. For the combinations vancomycin plus cephalothin and vancomycin plus imipenem the effect was additive in 76.9% and 80.7% respectively.

Conclusion

in this study the checkerboard analysis showed that amikacin in combination with cephalothin or dicloxacillin was synergistic against most of the resistant strains of S. aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Vancomycin in combination with a beta-lactam (cephalothin or imipenem) showed additivity. An indifferent effect predominated for the combination vancomycin plus amikacin. Even though a synergistic effect is expected when using a beta-lactam plus amikacin combination, it is possible that the effect cannot be clinically achievable. Careful selection of antimicrobial combinations and initial MICs are mandatory for future evaluations.

Background

Nosocomial staphylococcal infections are a health problem in different countries [1, 2]. In the United States of America there has been an increase in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial infections, from 2.1% to 35% in a 25-year period [3], with similar information from other developed countries like Japan and Canada [4, 5]. In Mexico, antimicrobial resistance reports about the frequency of MRSA and methicillin-resistant (MR) coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) are few, with variable percentages between 20% and 60% [610].

Glycopeptides are considered the standard treatment for infections due to MR Staphylococcus spp. strains, some authors have expressed their concern about in vitro vancomycin MICs and clinical outcomes in patients with MRSA bacteremia [11], thus other available alternatives are being considered (linezolid, tigecycline, daptomycin).

In Mexico, and other Latin American countries, vancomycin was introduced in the early 90's and newer antibiotics are expensive and available only in specialty hospitals. Different antimicrobial combinations are prescribed regularly; some of them include dicloxacillin or nafcillin plus amikacin, cephalothin plus amikacin, and vancomycin plus amikacin; however limited information about "in vitro" or "in vivo" efficacy for these combinations is available, particularly against nosocomial resistant isolates.

The objective of this study was to describe the interaction of beta-lactams in combination with vancomycin or amikacin against 26 oxacillin and amikacin-resistant nosocomial Staphylococcus spp. isolates.

Methods

Bacteria

94 Staphylococcus isolates obtained from blood and sterile fluids over a 7-month period from 2001 to 2003 were stored at -70°C. The organisms were identified by conventional methods (colonial morphology, Gram stain, and catalase and coagulase tests). Species identification was performed by using the API Staph system (Biomeriéux, L'Etole, France). Antibiotic susceptibility was performed with a broth microdilution method in accordance with the CLSI [12]. The antimicrobials tested included dicloxacillin (UPS-189009), cephalothin (Sigma Chemical Co, St. Louis, Mo. USA), imipenem (Merck, Sharp and Dohme, USA) amikacin (UPS-01950-8) and vancomycin (UPS 70900-7). Oxacillin (UPS-48100-0) susceptibility was performed by Mueller-Hinton broth supplemented with 2% of NaCl. Resistance was corroborated by detecting the mec A gene by PCR, by the method previously described [13, 14]. Reference type strains included for quality control were: S. aureus ATCC # 29213 and S. aureus # 43300. For the entire collection oxacillin resistance was detected in 48.5% and 93.1% respectively for S. aureus and CoNS.

Twenty six isolates, with resistance to oxacillin and intermediate resistance or resistance to amikacin were selected for the synergy tests. Strain identity was established by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) [15], only single, unrelated strains were included.

Synergy tests

The checkerboard technique was performed [16, 17], including the combinations: dicloxacillin/amikacin, cephalothin/amikacin, cephalothin/vancomycin, imipenem/vancomycin and vancomycin/amikacin. Stock solutions were prepared according to published standards [12].

Synergy tests were performed in 96-well microtiter plate containing two antimicrobial agents in two fold dilutions dispensed in a checkerboard fashion on the day of the assay. Each well contained 0.1 mL of individual antimicrobial combinations. Suspensions with turbidities equivalent to that of a 0.5 McFarland standard were prepared to yield a final inoculums of 3 × 105 to 5 × 105 CFU/mL. MICs were read after overnight incubation at 35°C. Growth and sterility controls were included in each plate. Each isolate was tested twice.

Amikacin, dicloxacillin, and cephalothin concentrations tested were from 0.125 to 1026 mg/L, and for vancomycin from 0.06 to 8 mg/L.

Synergy tests interpretation

For the first clear well in each row of the microtiter plate containing both antimicrobial agents, the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) was calculated as follows: FIC of drug A (FICA) = MIC of drug A in combination/MIC of drug A alone, and the FIC of drug B (FICB) = MIC of drug B in combination/MIC of drug B alone. If the MIC of any agent alone occurred at the lowest or highest concentration tested, the FIC was considered not determinable and synergy could not be assessed. The suma of both FICs in each well was used to classify the combination of antimicrobial agents as synergistic effect when FIC indexes were ≤ 0.5; partial synergy FIC >0.5 but < 1; additive FIC = 1.0; indifferent effect when values were >1 and < 4 and antagonistic when values were ≥ 4.0 [18].

Results and discussion

Resistance in vitro was 88.44% to dicloxacillin, 80.7% to cephalothin, 69.23% to imipenem, and 100% to amikacin (11.5% intermediate and 88.4% resistant) for the 26 isolates. All isolates were susceptible to vancomycin.

Results of the checkerboard synergy testing are summarized in table 1. For most of the isolates the combination cephalothin plus amikacin or dicloxacillin plus amikacin showed a FIC < 1. When initial MICs were compared with those registered in the antimicrobial combination, a drop up to 10–12 dilutions in the checkerboard assays was found for beta-lactams. For nearly half of the isolates the mean concentrations of dicloxacillin, cephalothin and amikacin at which FIC indexes were calculated were achievable therapeutically. Combinations that included vancomycin and a beta-lactam had FICs ≥ 1 and 2.
Table 1

MICs (mg/L) and FIC indexes of the 26 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp.

SPECIES

OX

DX

CEF

IMP

VAN

AK

DX/AKa

FIC

CEF/AKb

FIC

CEF/VANc

FIC

IMP/VANd

FIC

VAN/AKe

FIC

S. aureus

32

1

64

256

1

32

0.5/4

0.63

0.5/1

0.037

64/1

2

256/1

2

0.5/8

0.75

S. aureus

16

128

64

8

1

32

8/4

0.18

8/1

0.16

32/0.5

1

4/0.5

1

0.5/8

0.75

S. aureus

>32

32

64

8

1

512

8/128

0.5

8/64

0.25

64/1

2

4/0.5

1

1/64

1.12

S. aureus

>32

512

256

1

0.5

64

0.125/32

0.5

2/16

0.26

1/0.5

1

0.5/0.25

1

0.125/32

0.5

S. aureus

>32

512

64

512

2

128

2/4

0.03

1/64

0.52

64/2

1

256/1

1

0.125/32

0.31

S. aureus

8

32

32

8

2

128

8/32

0.5

4/64

0.62

32/2

2

8/2

2

2/16

1.12

S. aureus

8

2

0.5

8

1

128

1/64

1

0.125/64

0.75

0.25/0.5

1

4/0.5

1

1/64

1.5

S. aureus

>32

512

2

256

1

512

0.125/4

0.5

0.5/64

0.75

1/0.5

1

128/0.5

1

1/128

2

S. aureus

>32

128

128

8

2

128

0.5/32

0.25

16/64

0.52

1/2

1

4/1

1

0.5/64

0.75

S. aureus

>32

512

512

1

2

512

0.125/128

0.5

32/256

0.56

128/1

1

0.5/1

1

0.5/128

0.5

S. epidermidis

>32

512

4

256

0.5

32

1/8

0.25

0.125/8

0.28

2/0.25

1

128/0.25

1

0.06/0.125

0.12

S. epidermidis

>32

512

256

512

2

512

0.125/512

1

8/128

0.28

0.125/2

1

256/1

1

0.125/256

0.56

S. epidermidis

>32

512

32

512

1

128

0.125/64

0.5

0.25/64

0.5

0.125/1

1

256/0.5

1

0.125/64

0.62

S. epidermidis

>32

512

128

512

1

512

0.5/128

0.25

0.125/256

0.5

0.25/1

1

256/0.5

1

0.125/512

1.12

S. epidermidis

>32

512

256

512

1

128

2/64

0.5

1/64

0.5

128/0.5

1

256/0.5

1

1/16

1.12

S. epidermidis

>32

512

4

512

1

128

1/64

0.5

0.125/64

0.53

2/0.5

1

256/0.5

1

1/16

1.12

S. epidermidis

>32

8

2

512

1

128

4/64

1

0.125/64

0.56

0.125/1

1

256/0.5

1

0.125/64

0.62

S. epidermidis

>32

512

4

512

1

64

0.5/16

0.25

0.25/32

0.56

0.25/1

1

256/0.5

1

0.125/64

1.12

S. haemolyticus

>32

512

256

512

0.5

64

128/32

0.5

8/64

0.53

256/0.5

2

256/0.25

1

0.5/64

1.5

S. haemolyticus

>32

256

512

512

2

128

1/64

0.5

2/64

0.5

256/1

1

256/1

1

2/16

1.12

S. haemolyticus

>32

512

512

512

4

256

2/64

0.25

128/128

0.75

256/2

1

512/4

2

4/16

1.12

S. haemolyticus

>32

512

512

512

2

256

2/256

1

16/128

0.53

512/2

2

512/2

2

2/128

1.5

S. hominis

>32

128

64

256

4

128

2/64

0.5

16/64

0.75

32/2

1

128/2

1

1/64

0.75

S. hominis

>32

256

256

256

4

512

2/256

0.5

16/256

0.56

128/2

1

128/2

1

4/256

1.5

S capitis

>32

64

2

512

2

128

1/32

0.25

0.25/32

0.37

1/1

1

256/1

1

1/32

0.75

S. sciuri

>32

128

128

8

2

64

1/16

0.25

2/32

0.5

128/2

2

8/2

2

2/8

1.12

MIC in combination for a = dicloxacillin plus amikacin, b = cephalothin plus amikacin, c = cephalothin plus vancomycin, d = imipenem plus vancomycin and e = vancomycin plus amikacin.

According to the FIC (table 2), dicloxacillin with amikacin showed synergistic activity against 34.6% and partially synergistic activity in 50% of the isolates, and additive activity against the remainder four (15.6%), cephalothin with amikacin was synergistic against 26.9% and partially synergistic against the rest (73.07%). For cephalothin plus vancomycin combination, the effect was additive against 76.9% (20/26), and indifferent for 23.1%, imipenem plus vancomycin combination showed additivity against 80.7% (21/26) of the isolates and indifference against five isolates. Finally, vancomycin and amikacin combination was synergistic only in two isolates and partially synergistic against 38.46%, and indifferent effect was shown against 53.8% (14/26). None of the combinations showed an antagonistic effect.
Table 2

Antimicrobial combinations for reaction for synergy, partial synergy, additivity and indifference against 26 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. isolates.

 

No. of isolates

Antibiotic combinations

Synergy

Partial Synergy

Additivity

Indifference

DK-AKa

9

13

4

0

CEF-AKb

7

19

0

0

CEF-VANc

0

0

20

6

IMP-VANd

0

0

21

5

VAN-AKe

2

10

0

14

aDX-AK dicloxacillin plus amikacin.

bCEF-AK cephalothin plus amikacin.

cCEF-VAN cephalothin plus vancomycin.

dIMP-VAN imipenem plus vancomycin.

eVAN-AK vancomycin plus amikacin

Multirresistant Staphylococcus strains are a common problem [4, 10]. Reports of vancomycin tolerant or resistant strains have promoted the performance of antimicrobial interaction assays, using different combinations including vancomycin. Some studies have demonstrated synergistic effect for the combination of vancomycin and beta-lactams [1921], and there is some evidence supporting its use in combination with aminoglycosides, in endocarditis [22, 23].

In our study, synergy was evident for dicloxacillin or cephalothin in combination with amikacin, unfortunately, not in all cases the MICs in combination will be achieved therapeutically. In contrast with the results by Rochon-Edouard et al., we did not find a synergistic effect with the imipenem/vancomycin combination. The FIC indexes were inversely correlated with the MICs of imipenem (32 and 64 mg/L). The strains included in the present study required very high imipenem initial MICs (512 mg/L), and lower vancomycin concentrations (1–2 mg/L), therefore, results are poorly comparable. Results were similar for the vancomycin plus aminoglycoside combination (indifferent effect). One of the main obstacles to generalize the concept of the usefulness of antimicrobial combinations is the diversity of combinations in published studies [2426]. In developing countries, the availability of new drugs, active against resistant strains is limited due to its cost, combinations of traditional antimicrobial agents that exhibit synergy or even additive activity could be an option.

Conclusion

The best synergistic combination was cephalothin or dicloxacillin plus amikacin. The vancomycin combination with cephalothin or imipenem showed additivity. Vancomycin and amikacin had and indifferent effect. In vivo synergy and clinical efficacy cannot be predicted, but information of in vitro assays with resistant strains, could be useful to propose clinical studies to validate this information, most of all, in developing countries with a limited formulary.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the institutional grant number 039 (IMSS/FOFOI).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Unidad de Investigación en Epidemiología Hospitalaria, Coordinación de Investigación en Salud, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social
(2)
Departamento de Infectología/Dirección Médica, Hospital de Pediatría, Centro Médico Nacional, Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social.

References

  1. Christensen GD, Bisno AL, Parisi JT, McLaughlin B, Hester MG, Luther RW: Nosocomial septicemia due to multiply antibiotic resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis. Ann Intern Med. 1982, 96: 1-10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Martin MA, Pfaller MA, Wenzel RP: Coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia. Mortality and hospital stay. Ann Intern Med. 1989, 110: 9-16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Panlilio AL, Culver DH, Gaynes RP, Banerjee S, Henderson TS, Tolson JS, Martone WJ: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in US hospitals 1975–1991. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992, 13: 582-586.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Suh K, Toye B, Jessamine P, Chan F, Ramotar K: Epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in three Canadian tertiary-care centers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998, 19: 395-400.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Aires de Sousa M, de Lencastre H, Santos Sanches I, Kikuchi K, Totsuka K, Tomasz A: Similarity of antibiotic resistant patterns and molecular typing properties of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates widely spread in hospital in New York City and in a hospital in Tokyo, Japan. Micro Drug Resist. 2000, 6: 253-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Alpuche-Aranda C, Avila-Figueroa C, Espinoza-De los Monteros L, Gomez-Barreto D, Santos-Preciado JI: Patrón de sensibilidad antimicrobiana de Staphylococcus aureus en un Hospital Pediátrico: prevalencia de resistencia a meticilina. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 1989, 46: 700-703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Giraud MC, Calva JJ, Huazano F, Ponce de Leon S, Ruiz-Palacios G: Patrones de susceptibilidad a 19 antimicrobianos de gérmenes aislados de hemocultivos en un hospital de referencia de la ciudad de México. Rev Invest Clin. 1986, 38: 7-14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Solórzano-Santos F, Miranda-Novales MG, Díaz-Ponce H, Leaños-Miranda B, Fajardo-Gutiérrez A: Factores de riesgo para sepsis en pacientes pediátricos con infección por Staphylococcus coagulasa negativa. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 1994, 51: 384-388.Google Scholar
  9. Urdez-Hernandez E, Sifuentes-Osornio J, Calva JJ, Villalobos-Zapata Y: Epidemiological and biological characteristics of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections in a Mexican Hospital. Arch Med Res. 1999, 30: 325-31. 10.1016/S0188-0128(99)00031-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Santos Sanches I, Mato R, de Lencastre H, Tomasz A, : Patterns of multidrug resistance among methicillin-resistant hospital isolates of coagulase-positive and coagulase-negative Staphylococci collected in the International Multicenter Study Resist in 1997 and 1998. Microb Drug Res. 2000, 6: 199-211.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Moise-Broder PA, Sakoulas G, Eliopoulos GM, Schentag JJ, Forrest A, Moellering RC: Accesory gene regulator group II polymorphism in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is predictive of failure of vancomycin therapy. C I D. 2004, 38: 1700-05. 10.1086/421092.Google Scholar
  12. CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute), : Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility testing. Fifteenth Informational Supplement. CLSI document M100-S15. Pennsylvania USA. 2005, 19087-1898.Google Scholar
  13. Tenover FC, Jones RN, Swenson JM, Zimmer B, McAllister S, Jorgensen JH: Methods for improved detection of oxacillin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci: results of a multicenter study. J Clin Microb. 1999, 37: 4051-58.Google Scholar
  14. Kohner P, Uhl J, Kolbert C, Persing D, Cockerill F: Comparison of susceptibility testing methods with mec A gene analysis for determining oxacillin (methicillin) resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp. J Clin Microbiol. 1999, 37: 2952-61.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Velázquez-Meza ME, Aires de Sousa M, Echaniz-Aviles G, Solorzano-Santos F, Miranda-Novales G, Silva-Sanchez J, de Lencastre H: Surveillance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a pediatric hospital in Mexico City during a 7-year period (1997–2003):Clonal evolution and impact of infection control. J Clin Microbiol. 2004, 42: 3877-80. 10.1128/JCM.42.8.3877-3880.2004PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Norden CW, Wentzel H, Keleti E: Comparison of techniques for measurement of in vitro antibiotic synergism. J Infect Dis. 1979, 140: 629-33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rochon-Edouard S, Pestel-Caron M, Lemeland JF, Caron F: In vitro synergistic effects of double and triple combinations of b-lactams, vancomycin and netilmicin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000, 44: 3055-60. 10.1128/AAC.44.11.3055-3060.2000PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Eliopolus GM, Moellering RC: Antimicrobial combinations. In Antibiotics in Laboratory medicine. 2000, 432-49. Williams and Wilkins, Co. Baltimore, MD USA, 3Google Scholar
  19. Dawis MA, Isenberg HD, France KA, Jenkins SG: In vitro activity of gatifloxacin alone and in combination with cefepime, meropenem, piperacillin and gentamicin against multidrug-resistant organisms. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003, 51: 1203-11. 10.1093/jac/dkg238View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Climo MW, Patron RL, Archer GL: Combinations of vancomycin and b-lactams are synergistic against staphylococci with reduced susceptibilities to vancomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999, 36: 1747-53.Google Scholar
  21. Raymond J, Vedel G, Bergeret G: In-vitro bactericidal activity of cefpirome in combination with vancomycin against Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996, 38: 1067-71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Le T, Bayer AS: Combination antibiotic therapy for infective endocarditis. C I D. 2003, 36: 615-21. 10.1086/367661.Google Scholar
  23. Lee DG, Chun HS, Yim DS, Choi SM, Choi JH, Yoo JH, Shin WS, Kang MW: Efficacies of vancomycin, arbekacin, and gentamicin alone or in combination against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro infective endocarditis model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003, 47: 3768-73. 10.1128/AAC.47.12.3768-3773.2003PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Snydman DR, McDermott LA, Jacobus NV: Evaluation of in vitro interaction of daptomycin with gentamicin or beta-lactam antibiotics against Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococci by FIC index and timed-kill curves. J Chemother. 2005, 17: 614-21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lozniewski A, Lion C, Mory F, Weber M: In vitro synergy between cefepime and vancomycin against methicillin-susceptible and – resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001, 47: 83-6. 10.1093/jac/47.1.83View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Raymond J, Vedel G, Bergeret M: In-vitro bactericidal activity of cefpirome in combination with vancomycin against Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996, 38: 1067-71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Miranda-Novales et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement