Most Read

  1. Pneumococcal Vaccine as One of the Immunization Coverage Targets for Adulthood Vaccines: A Consensus Report of the Study Group for Adult Immunization of the Turkish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
  2. Does Hepatitis B Affect Erectile Dysfunction and Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms?
  3. HIV Infection in Turkey: How Close Are We to the Target?
  4. Evaluation of HBeAg-Negative Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Who Had Undergone Liver Biopsy in Accordance With the Guidelines
  5. Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention of Diabetic Foot Wounds and Infections: Turkish Consensus Report
  6. When to Stop Antiviral Therapy in Chronic Hepatitis B
  7. Mycoplasma hominis and Ureaplasma urealyticum: Their Role in Urogenital System Infections and Retrospective Evaluation of Antibiotic Resistance Rates
  8. Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever: Treatment and Use of Ribavirin
  9. Analysis of HIV/AIDS-Related Stigma and Discrimination in Turkey: Results of the People Living With HIV Stigma Index
  10. Modern Diagnostic Methods Used in Bacteriology: Rapid and Effective

Volume 38, Issue 1

Original Article

Antibiotic Resistance of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis (2010–2023)

Belgin Altun
Affiliations
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sağlık Hizmetleri Meslek Yüksekokulu, Ankara, Türkiye
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8352-9692
,
Gülşen Hazırolan
Affiliations
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Tıbbi Mikrobiyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4546-9729
,
Deniz Gür
Affiliations
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Tıbbi Mikrobiyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7504-8450
  • Enterococcus faecalis
  • Enterococcus faecium
  • resistance
  • surveillance

Abstract

Objective: Surveillance studies are essential to determine whether antibiotic resistance has increased over the years and to update hospital antibiotic use policies and empirical treatment protocols. In this report, we compared the antibiotic resistance of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis collected at Hacettepe University Hospitals between 2010-2023 within the scope of the “SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program” according to years.

Methods: Enterococci have been isolated from blood, respiratory tract, skin and soft tissue, urine, intra-abdominal, and other sterile body samples between 2010–2023; a single sample from each patient was included. Microorganisms were identified by MALDI-TOF-MS. Ampicillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, linezolid, tigecycline, teicoplanin, vancomycin susceptibilities were assessed by microdilution method according to EUCAST criteria, and high-level-aminoglycoside susceptibility was assessed by disk-diffusion.

Results: Isolates have been isolated from blood (n=161), respiratory tract (n=6), skin and soft tissue (n=166), urine (n=60), intra-abdominal (n=80), and other sterile specimens (n=7). A total of 480 Enterococci were identified as E. faecium (n=241) and E. faecalis (n=239). In E. faecium, resistance to ampicillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, tigecycline, teicoplanin, and vancomycin were 90.8%, 93.6%, 76.1%, 80.4%, 1.2%, 20.3%, and 20.3%, respectively. Linezolid resistance was not detected in E. faecium. Ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and tigecycline resistance rates of E. faecalis were 26.5%, 22.3%, and 0.4%, respectively. None of the E. faecalis were resistant to ampicillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, linezolid, teicoplanin and vancomycin. There was no significant change in the resistance rates of E. faecium, and E. faecalis isolates during the 13 years.

Conclusion: Resistance to antibiotics was higher in E. faecium isolates than in E. faecalis. Resistance to vancomycin and teicoplanin was found in E. faecium but not in E. faecalis. Linezolid and tigecycline were effective antibiotics in both Enterococci species.

Keywords: Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus faecalis, resistance, surveillance

Show References

References

  1. KAYNAKLAR
  2. Leclercq R, Derlot E, Duval J, Courvalin P. Plasmid-mediated resistance to vancomycin and teicoplanin in Enterococcus faecium. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(3):157-61. [CrossRef]
  3. Uttley AH, George RC, Naidoo J, et al. High-level vancomycin-resistant enterococci causing hospital infections. Epidemiol Infect. 1989;103(1):173-81. [CrossRef]
  4. Ramos S, Silva V, Dapkevicius MLE, Igrejas G, Poeta P. Enterococci, from harmless bacteria to a pathogen. Microorganisms. 2020;8(8):1118. [CrossRef]
  5. Al Rubaye M, Janice J, Bjørnholt JV, et al, The Norwegian Vre Study Group. The population structure of vancomycin-resistant and -susceptible Enterococcus faecium in a low-prevalence antimicrobial resistance setting is highly influenced by circulating global hospital-associated clones. Microb Genom. 2023;9(12):001160. [CrossRef]
  6. Miller WR, Murray BE, Rice LB, Arias CA. Resistance in vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2020;34(4):751-71. [CrossRef]
  7. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters; version 14.0 [Internet]. In: The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) web site; January 1, 2024. [erişim 3 Eylül 2024]. https://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Breakpoint_tables/v_14.0_Breakpoint_Tables.pdf
  8. The EUCAST guideline on detection of resistance mechanisms; v 2.0 [Internet]. In: The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) web site; July 11, 2017. [erişim 3 Eylül 2024]. https://www.eucast.org/resistance_mechanisms
  9. Desai PJ, Pandit D, Mathur M, Gogate A. Prevalence, identification and distribution of various species of enterococci isolated from clinical specimens with special reference to urinary tract infection in catheterized patients. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2001;19(3):132-7.
  10. Vehreschild MJGT, Haverkamp M, Biehl LM, Lemmen S, Fätkenheuer G. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE): a reason to isolate? Infection. 2019;47(1):7-11. [CrossRef]
  11. Paul M, Nirwan PS, Srivastava P. Isolation of Enterococcus from various clinical samples and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern in a tertiary care hospital. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(2):1326-32. [CrossRef]
  12. Mert Dinç B, Karabiber N, Aykut Arca E. [Macrolide – lincosamide – streptogramin B (MLSB) resistance and fusidic acid susceptibility of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains isolated from clinical samples]. Turk Hij Den Biyol Derg. 2009;66(3):89-94. Turkish.
  13. Etiz P, Kibar F, Ekenoğlu Y, Yaman A. [Evaluation of the antibiotic resistance profiles of Enterococcus species ısolated from urine cultures]. Türk Mikrobiyol Cem Derg. 2014;44(3):107-13. Turkish. [CrossRef]
  14. Jones RN, Flonta M, Gurler N, Cepparulo M, Mendes RE, Castanheira M. Resistance surveillance program report for selected European nations (2011). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;78(4):429-36. [CrossRef]
  15. García-Solache M, Rice LB. The Enterococcus: a model of adaptability to its environment. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2019;32(2):e00058-18. [CrossRef]
  16. Sader HS, Watters AA, Fritsche TR, Jones RN. Daptomycin antimicrobial activity tested against methicillin-resistant staphylococci and vancomycin-resistant enterococci isolated in European medical centers (2005). BMC Infect Dis. 2007;7:29. [CrossRef]
  17. Savcı Ü, Şahin M, Eser B. [The evaluation of antimicrobial resistances of Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium strains isolated from clinical specimens]. J Health Sci Med 2018;1(1):4-8. Turkish. [CrossRef]
  18. Ödemiş İ, Köse Ş, Ersan G, Çelik D, Akbulut İ. [Evaluation of antibiotic susceptibilities of enterococcus strains isolated from clinical samples of hospitalized patients]. Turk Hij Den Biyol Derg. 2018;75(4):345-52. Turkish. [CrossRef]
  19. Antimicrobial resistance surveillance in Europe 2023 – 2021 data [Internet]. Stockholm: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and World Health Organization; 2023. [erişim 3 Eylül 2024]. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Antimicrobial%20resistance%20surveillance%20in%20Europe%202023%20-%202021%20data.pdf
  20. Auckland C, Teare L, Cooke F, Kaufmann ME, Warner M, Jones G, et al. Linezolid-resistant enterococci: report of the first isolates in the United Kingdom. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002;50(5):743-6. [CrossRef]
  21. Swoboda S, Fritz S, Martignoni ME, et al. Varying linezolid susceptibility of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolates during therapy: a case report. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;56(4):787-9. [CrossRef]
  22. Pfaller MA, Cormican M, Flamm RK, Mendes RE, Jones RN. Temporal and geographic variation in antimicrobial susceptibility and resistance patterns of enterococci: results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1997-2016. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(Suppl 1):S54-S62. [CrossRef]
  23. Kilbas I, Ciftci IH. Antimicrobial resistance of Enterococcus isolates in Turkey: A meta-analysis of current studies. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2018;12:26-30. [CrossRef]
  24. Seifert H, Blondeau J, Dowzicky MJ. In vitro activity of tigecycline and comparators (2014-2016) among key WHO ‘priority pathogens’ and longitudinal assessment (2004-2016) of antimicrobial resistance: a report from the T.E.S.T. study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018;52(4):474-84. [CrossRef]
  25. Sig AK, Kula Atik T, Çetin Duran A. Antibiotic resistance of Enterococcus species: 3-year data. J Health Sci Med. 2021;4(5):670-4. [CrossRef]
  26. Gedik T, Kiraz N, Duran H. The change of antibiotic resistance rates over the years in Enterococcus spp. isolated from clinical specimens. J Health Sci Med. 2023;6(5):1052-8. [CrossRef]
  27. Altun B, Cengiz AB, Kara A, et al. First vancomycin-resistant blood isolate of Enterococcus faecium in a children’s hospital and molecular analysis of the mechanism of resistance. Turk J Pediatr. 2008;50(6):554-8.
  28. Mendes RE, Castanheira M, Farrell DJ, Flamm RK, Sader HS, Jones RN. Longitudinal (2001-14) analysis of enterococci and VRE causing invasive infections in European and US hospitals, including a contemporary (2010-13) analysis of oritavancin in vitro potency. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(12):3453-8. [CrossRef]
  • 13-8
  • Belgin Altun
  • altunb@hacettepe.edu.tr
  • 10.36519/kd.2025.5110
  • September 3, 2024
  • January 3, 2025
  • March 21, 2025

  • Altun B, Hazıolan G, Gür D. [Antibiotic resistance of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis (2010–2023)]. Klimik Derg. 2025;37(4):13-8. Turkish.
  • 55
  • 21
Download as PDF
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License. CC BY-NC
Volume 38, Issue 1 Volume 37, Issue 4 Volume 37, Issue 3 Volume 37, Issue 2 Volume 37, Issue 1 Volume 36, Issue 4 Volume 36, Supplement 1 Volume 36, Issue 3 Volume 36, Issue 2 Volume 36, Issue 1 Volume 35, Issue 4 Volume 35, Issue 3 Volume 35, Issue 2 Volume 35, Issue 1 Volume 34, Issue 3 Volume 34, Issue 2 Volume 34, Issue 1 Volume 33, Issue 3 Volume 33, Issue 2 Volume 33, Issue 1 Volume 32, Issue 3 Volume 32, Supplement 1 Volume 32, Supplement 2 Volume 32, Issue 2 Volume 32, Issue 1 Volume 31, Issue 3 Volume 31, Issue 2 Volume 31, Supplement 1 Volume 31, Issue 1 Volume 30, Issue 3 Volume 30, Issue 2 Volume 30, Supplement 1 Volume 30, Issue 1 Volume 29, Issue 3 Volume 29, Issue 2 Volume 29, Issue 1 Volume 28, Supplement 1 Volume 28, Issue 3 Volume 28, Issue 2 Volume 28, Issue 1 Volume 27, Supplement 1 Volume 27, Issue 3 Volume 27, Issue 2 Volume 27, Issue 1 Volume 26, Issue 3 Volume 26, Supplement 1 Volume 26, Issue 2 Volume 26, Issue 1 Volume 25, Issue 3 Volume 25, Issue 2 Volume 25, Issue 1 Volume 24, Issue 3 Volume 24, Issue 2 Volume 24, Issue 1 Volume 23, Issue 3 Volume 23, Issue 2 Volume 23, Issue 1 Volume 22, Issue 3 Volume 22, Issue 2 Volume 22, Issue 1 Volume 21, Issue 3 Volume 21, Supplement 2 Volume 21, Supplement 1 Volume 21, Issue 2 Volume 21, Issue 1 Volume 20, Issue 3 Volume 20, Supplement 2 Volume 20, Issue 2 Volume 20, Issue 1 Volume 20, Supplement 1 Volume 19, Issue 3 Volume 19, Issue 2 Volume 19, Issue 1 Volume 18, Issue 3 Volume 18, Supplement 1 Volume 18, Issue 2 Volume 18, Issue 1 Volume 17, Issue 3 Volume 17, Issue 2 Volume 17, Issue 1 Volume 16, Issue 3 Volume 16, Issue 2 Volume 16, Issue 1 Volume 1, Supplement 1 Volume 15, Issue 3 Volume 15, Issue 2 Volume 15, Issue 1 Volume 14, Issue 3 Volume 14, Issue 2 Volume 14, Issue 1 Volume 13, Issue 3 Volume 13, Issue 2 Volume 13, Supplement 1 Volume 13, Issue 1 Volume 12, Issue 3 Volume 12, Issue 2 Volume 12, Issue 1 Volume 11, Issue 3 Volume 11, Issue 2 Volume 11, Supplement 1 Volume 11, Issue 1 Volume 10, Issue 3 Volume 10, Issue 2 Volume 10, Issue 1 Volume 9, Issue 3 Volume 9, Issue 2 Volume 9, Issue 1 Volume 8, Issue 3 Volume 8, Issue 2 Volume 8, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 3 Volume 7, Issue 1 Volume 7, Issue 2 Volume 7, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 3 Volume 5, Issue 1 Volume 5, Issue 2 Volume 5, Issue 3 Volume 6, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 1 Volume 3, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 1 Volume 4, Issue 2 Volume 1, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 1 Volume 2, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 3 Volume 1, Issue 1