• Users Online: 80
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents  
Ahead of print publication
Evaluation of in vitro activity of tigecycline against multidrug-resistant clinical isolates


 Department of Microbiology, Father Muller Medical College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission25-Apr-2022
Date of Decision11-May-2022
Date of Acceptance16-May-2022
Date of Web Publication30-Sep-2022
 

  Abstract 


Introduction: Multiple drug resistance (MDR) of the bacteria is an issue across any health-care setting worldwide. This leads to prolonged hospital stay and high cost of treatment. One must be cautious to use reserve drugs such as imipenem, meropenem, colistin, polymyxin, and tigecycline. Tigecycline is a mainstay to treat emerging single or MDR pathogens. The study was conducted to assess the in vitro sensitivity of tigecycline to MDR isolates and to compare the sensitivity of Kirby–Bauer (KB) disc-diffusion method with the Epsilometer (E-test) against various MDR clinical isolates. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was done from January 2019 to 2020 on MDR isolates from clinical specimens. The isolates were tested for their antibiotic sensitivity to tigecycline by KB and E-test method to know the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of tigecycline. Statistical data were analyzed by the percentage method. Results: Tigecycline showed a higher in vitro sensitivity against multidrug-resistant isolates in our study. Among the 89 MDR isolates obtained, 38 (42.7) were found to be sensitive to tigecycline by the KB diffusion and 67 (75.3) were sensitive by the E-test method. Conclusions: Tigecycline is a reserve antibiotic against MDR organisms, especially useful to treat coinfections of Gram-positive and Gram-negative superbugs. The E-test was found to be far superior to the KB method to detect in vitro activity and the results of this test will guide the clinician to judiciously use this antibiotic in their day-to-day practice.

Keywords: Epsilometer test, Kirby–Bauer, multidrug resistance, tigecycline


How to cite this URL:
Wilson LA, Kuruvilla TS. Evaluation of in vitro activity of tigecycline against multidrug-resistant clinical isolates. APIK J Int Med [Epub ahead of print] [cited 2022 Dec 4]. Available from: https://www.ajim.in/preprintarticle.asp?id=357508





  Introduction Top


Antibiotics over the past 80 years have only had a comparatively narrow spectrum of activity.[1] The antibiotic sensitivity testing is a critical component of the microbiology laboratory.[2] The ongoing global problem has certainly been multidrug resistance among bacterial pathogens making it difficult to treat these bacterial diseases.[3] Tigecycline, is derived from minocycline and acts by time-dependent killing and is a suitable stand by reserve drug for multiple drug resistance (MDR) isolates.[4],[5] MDR Gram-negative pathogens such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and certain Gram-negative isolates in the Enterobacteriaceae family are often seen in patients with prolonged hospital stay leading to higher health-care expenses and higher mortality rates.[6]

Tigecycline is a glycylcycline antibiotic with a specific in vitro sensitivity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.[7] A global trial called Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial monitors the in vitro sensitivity of tigecycline alongside comparable antibiotics against Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates.[8]

Tigecycline has a broader spectrum of activity particularly against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria and MDR pathogens.[9] Many studies have shown that tigecycline sensitivity may wane due to an increased expression of the mechanism of efflux pumps through resistance-nodulation-cell division type in Enterobacteriaceae.[8]

Tigecycline can overcome tetracycline resistance by a huge steric substituent at the ninth position in the chemical structure.[10] Tigecycline not only permits tet gene-encoded mechanisms of resistance but can also preserve its activity against Gram-negative organisms that carry various extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL's).[11] Thus, its efficacy in abdominal and diseases of the skin and soft tissue may include Enterobacteriaceae strains that are sensitive or multidrug-resistant strains and also cover certain anaerobes.[12] Resistance mediated by the ribosome protection and tetracycline efflux of the active drug is overcome by tigecycline as it has a steric spatial configuration.[13]

Disc diffusion tests are the most widely used method to detect tigecycline sensitivity. Just as with MIC values from macro broth and micro broth dilutions, zone sizes also have break points as defined by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) that can identify if the organism is sensitive, intermediate sensitive, or resistant to tigecycline.[14] A recent modification and a more significant method than KB is the use of a strip with graded antibiotic for quantitative minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) test method also called the Epsilometer or E-test. The elliptical edge where the antibiotic concentration meets with the strip is taken as the MIC value.[15] The break point MIC for tigecycline is read as sensitive, intermediate sensitive, or resistant at ≤2, 4, and ≥8 mg/L, respectively.[16] The reference range of tigecycline (15 μg) against Enterobacteriaceae is ≥18mm as sensitive and ≤15mm is taken as resistant, whether or not ESBL's are produced.[17]

It is observed that the MIC of the antibiotics such as doxycycline and minocycline are higher than tigecycline. Because they overexpress genes such as Mex AB-OprM and MexCD-OprJ. Acinetobacter species and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia shows resistance against tigecycline doses.[18] The objective of our study was to analyze the in vitro action of tigecycline to isolates that show multidrug resistance and compare the sensitivity using conventional Kirby–Bauer (KB) and the Epsilometer method against various multidrug-resistant isolates.


  Materials and Methods Top


This prospective, analytical, observational study was done at the Department of Microbiology of a tertiary care institute, for a period of 1 year from January 2019 to January 2020. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee. All multidrug-resistant isolates that were resistant to one or more antibiotics were included in the study and tested. All fully sensitive clinical isolates were not a part of the study. With P = 35.9% (reference value), confidence level 95%, and absolute error 10%, the estimated sample size was calculated as 89.

A 0.5 McFarland standard suspension of the resistant test strains were lawn cultured onto Mueller–Hinton agar using a sterile cotton swab. After the plate dried, a tigecycline disk (15 μg) was placed in the center of the plate using a sterile forceps. After incubating the plate at 37°C overnight, the zone of inhibition around the disk was measured.

Then, the Epsilometer containing a predefined gradient of antibiotic concentrations was used as a quantitative method of detecting MIC using the principles of both dilution and diffusion of antibiotic into the medium. The MDR isolates were lawn cultured onto Mueller–Hinton agar and the tigecycline E strip was placed in the center of the plate. The plate was then incubated at 37°C overnight. An elliptical zone of inhibition was produced surrounding the strip and the MIC determined. The statistical analysis was done by frequency and percentage.


  Results Top


The number and type of organisms isolated showing multidrug resistance are shown in [Table 1] and [Figure 1]. The patients selected were from 1 to 85 years of age, and a greater percentage of them were between 51 and 70 years. In the KB disc diffusion method, 15 (16.9%) isolates were resistant, 36 (40.4%) isolates were intermediate sensitive, and 38 (42.7%) were found to be sensitive. In MIC E-test method, 16 (18%) isolates were resistant, 6 (6.7%) isolates were intermediate sensitive, and 67 (75.3%) isolates were sensitive. The organisms isolated and their tigecycline MIC ranges are depicted in [Table 2] and [Figure 2].
Figure 1: Graphic representation of pathogens showing multidrug resistance

Click here to view
Figure 2: Tigecycline minimum inhibitory concentration range for the isolated pathogens

Click here to view
Table 1: Percentage of pathogens showing multidrug resistance

Click here to view
Table 2: Organisms isolated and their tigecycline minimum inhibitory concentrations range

Click here to view


Among these, E-test MIC-resistant isolates were 9 (25%), intermediate sensitive were 4 (11.1%), and sensitive isolates were 23 (63.9%). In the KB method, the total number of resistant isolates were 15. Among these, E-test MIC of the resistant isolates was 7 (46.7%), intermediate isolates was 1 (6.7%), and sensitive isolates were 7 (46.7%). In the KB method, the total number of sensitive isolates was 38. Among these the E-test MIC showed no resistant isolates, although intermediate sensitive isolate was 1 (2.6%), and sensitive isolates were 37 (97.4%).


  Discussion Top


Any irrational use of the World Health Organization (WHO) classified reserve antibiotics including tigecyclines are the culprits of the menace of drug resistance worldwide. A more accurate in vitro testing gives us a greater picture of true usefulness of any particular third-line reserve antibiotic as emphasized by Yilmaz et al. in her study using MIC values for the treatment.[19] The same principle is applicable for vancomycin-resistant Enterococci and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus according to Flávia Rossi and Andreazzi.[20]

Majority of the isolates belonged to the patients in the age groups of 51–70 years (47.2%), followed by 71–90 years (23.6%). This data was similar to a study by Mamta Kumari and Soni,[21] who showed that MDR isolates were predominantly seen in patients aged 41–60 years. Isolates from female patients were more common when compared to males with a female-to-male ratio of 2:1 in our study. Our results were comparable with a study by Muralidharan et al.,[22] who also showed MDR isolates were more common in women than in men. In contrast Najotra et al.[23] showed a preponderance among males than females with 52 males and 33 females. Tigecycline, and its increased effectiveness does not vary with age, gender, or the disease in patients according to Pankey et al.[9] Kusuma et al.[24] showed a preponderance of MDR Klebsiella pneumoniae (35) and Acinetobacter spp. (35) when compared to Escherichia coli (15) which was also a finding in our study. We had tested the isolates by both the KB and Epsilometer E-test methods and a better performance was shown by the E-test, and the findings were similar to studies by Soham Gupta et al.[25] In our study, tigecycline in vitro activity by MIC method showed a good sensitivity of (75.3%) against multidrug-resistant isolates. Giammanco et al. also showed tigecycline has the capacity to retain in vitro activity to MDR bacteria.[26] Our study can be closely compared with a report published by Najotra et al. showing a higher percentage of Acinetobacter spp. tested were found sensitive to tigecycline.[23]

The E-test results, however, were not similar to findings by Behera et al., who showed that 58% percentage of Acinetobacter spp. tested were resistant to tigecycline.[27] Thus, certain studies call for caution while testing and interpreting the in vitro susceptibility of tigecycline keeping in mind possible evolving resistant mechanisms.

It also calls for a continuous monitoring and molecular identification of these resistant bugs including A. baumannii according to Mavroidi et al.[28] Xiaoxing Du et al. also demonstrated in vivo evidence that tetA gene may lead to a failure of treatment with resistant strains.[29]

The MIC range among our isolates was 0.19–8 μg/ml. The isolates with an MIC of ≤2 μg/ml showed a KB zone size diameter of ≥18 mm except in one Klebsiella isolate from blood where zone size was 17 mm. The isolates that had an MIC of 4 μg/ml were found to be intermediate (20–21 mm) and resistant (16–19 mm) and those with an MIC of ≥8 μg/ml were found to be intermediate sensitive (20–22 mm). Veeraraghavan et al. says there is wide gray area in MIC breakpoints that differ by four two fold dilutions by two organizations such as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and EUCAST 2019, so it is better to make use of the EUCAST PK/PD nonspecies-related breakpoints for a useful clinical interpretation.[30]

A study by Babaei and Haeili[31] also confirms that the E-test is a suitable method to test extensively drug-resistant A. baumannii and carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) and E. coli. There are, however, no existing susceptibility breakpoints for some of the most important clinical pathogens including carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAB) from any breakpoint organization, including the FDA.[32] The CLSI too have not mentioned breakpoints or any preferred method for the tigecycline susceptibility testing of Enterobacteriaceae, and only a few studies have actually validated available methods for testing.[32]

The disk diffusion method still remains a simple, accurate, and inexpensive method even to test CRKP and CRAB.[33] However, our study substantiates that the MIC E-test method was found to be an effective tool by demonstrating a greater percentage of sensitive strains which might otherwise have been declared as resistant by the KB method.


  Conclusion Top


Tigecycline is the viable future option among this menace of antibiotic resistance, especially when treating coinfections of Gram-positive and Gram-negative superbugs. Despite merits and demerits of various methods of testing tigecycline sensitivity, an E-test report will be a better guide to clinicians to judiciously use this antibiotic.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Davies J, Davies D. Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2010;74:417-33.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Abraham EP, Chain E. An enzyme from bacteria able to destroy penicillin. 1940. Rev Infect Dis 1988;10:677-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Milatovic D, Schmitz FJ, Verhoef J, Fluit AC. Activities of the glycylcycline tigecycline (GAR-936) against 1,924 recent European clinical bacterial isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003;47:400-4.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Datta N, Hughes VM. Plasmids of the same Inc groups in Enterobacteria before and after the medical use of antibiotics. Nature 1983;306:616-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Curcio D. Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections: Are you ready for the challenge? Curr Clin Pharmacol 2014;9:27-38.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
De Angelis GD, D'Inzeo T, Fiori B, Spanu T, Sganga G. Burden of antibiotic resistant Gram negative bacterial infections: Evidence and limits. J Med Microbiol Diagn 2014;3:132-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Dong Z, Abbas MN, Kausar S, Yang J, Li L, Tan L, et al. Biological functions and molecular mechanisms of antibiotic tigecycline in the treatment of cancers. Int J Mol Sci 2019;20:E3577.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Marchaim D, Pogue JM, Tzuman O, Hayakawa K, Lephart PR, Salimnia H, et al. Major variation in MICs of tigecycline in Gram-negative bacilli as a function of testing method. J Clin Microbiol 2014;52:1617-21.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Pankey GA. Tigecycline. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;56:470-80.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Jitkova Y, Gronda M, Hurren R, Wang X, Goard CA, Jhas B, et al. A novel formulation of tigecycline has enhanced stability and sustained antibacterial and antileukemic activity. PLoS One 2014;9:e95281.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Connell SR, Tracz DM, Nierhaus KH, Taylor DE. Ribosomal protection proteins and their mechanism of tetracycline resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003;47:3675-81.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Jhas B, Sriskanthadevan S, Skrtic M, Sukhai MA, Voisin V, Jitkova Y, et al. Metabolic adaptation to chronic inhibition of mitochondrial protein synthesis in acute myeloid leukemia cells. PLoS One 2013;8:e58367.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Chopra I. Glycylcyclines: Third-generation tetracycline antibiotics. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2001;1:464-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Sastry AS. Essentials of Medical Microbiology. Ch. 7. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd: New Delhi, India; 2016.p. 83-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Sum PE, Petersen P. Synthesis and structure-activity relationship of novel glycylcycline derivatives leading to the discovery of GAR-936. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 1999;9:1459-62.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Visalli MA, Murphy E, Projan SJ, Bradford PA. AcrAB multidrug efflux pump is associated with reduced levels of susceptibility to tigecycline (GAR-936) in Proteus mirabilis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003;47:665-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Hirata T, Saito A, Nishino K, Tamura N, Yamaguchi A. Effects of efflux transporter genes on susceptibility of Escherichia coli to tigecycline (GAR-936). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004;48:2179-84.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Henwood CJ, Gatward T, Warner M, James D, Stockdale MW, Spence RP, et al. Antibiotic resistance among clinical isolates of Acinetobacter in the UK, and in vitro evaluation of tigecycline (GAR-936). J Antimicrob Chemother 2002;49:479-87.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Yilmaz FF, Taşli H, Gül-Yurtsever S, Büyük A, Hoşgör-Limoncu M. Tigecycline susceptibility in multidrug resistant Acinetobacter isolates from Turkey. Pol J Microbiol 2013;62:295-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Rossi F, Andreazzi D. Overview of tigecycline and its role in the era of antibiotic resistance. Braz J Infect Dis 2006;10:203-16.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Mamta Kumari S, Soni S. Emergence of tigecycline resistance in multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms isolated at tertiary care hospital, Ahmedabad. Natl J Integr Res Med 2017;8:153-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Muralidharan G, Fruncillo RJ, Micalizzi M, Raible DG, Troy SM. Effects of age and sex on single-dose pharmacokinetics of tigecycline in healthy subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005;49:1656-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Najotra DK, Slathia P, Kumar N, Digra SK. The in vitro activity of tigecycline against the multidrug resistant Acinetobacter Spp. at a Tertiary Care Hospital. J Clin Diagn Res 2012;6:1184-7.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Kusuma GR, Tejashree A, Vijay Kumar GS. In-vitro susceptibility to tigecycline in multidrug resistant bacterial isolates from a tertiary care hospital. Int J Curr Res Rev 2016;8:12-6.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Gupta S, Aruna C, Nagaraj S, Dias M, Muralidharan S. In vitro activity of tigecycline against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative blood culture isolates from critically ill patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012;67:1293-5.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Giammanco A, Calà C, Fasciana T, Dowzicky MJ. Global assessment of the activity of tigecycline against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens between 2004 and 2014 as part of the Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial. mSphere 2017;2:e00310-16.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Behera B, Das A, Mathur P, Kapil A, Gadepalli R, Dhawan B. Tigecycline susceptibility report from an Indian tertiary care hospital. Indian J Med Res 2009;129:446-50.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
28.
Mavroidi A, Likousi S, Palla E, Katsiari M, Roussou Z, Maguina A, et al. Molecular identification of tigecycline- and colistin-resistant carbapenemase-producing Acinetobacter baumannii from a Greek hospital from 2011 to 2013. J Med Microbiol 2015;64:993-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Du X, He F, Shi Q, Zhao F, Xu J, Fu Y, et al. The rapid emergence of tigecycline resistance in blaKPC-2 harboring Klebsiella pneumoniae, as mediated in vivo by mutation in tetA during tigecycline treatment. Front Microbiol 2018;9:648.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Veeraraghavan B, Poojary A, Shankar C, Bari AK, Kukreja S, Thukkaram B, et al. In-vitro activity of tigecycline and comparator agents against common pathogens: Indian experience. J Infect Dev Ctries 2019;13:245-50.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Babaei S, Haeili M. Evaluating the performance characteristics of different antimicrobial susceptibility testing methodologies for testing susceptibility of gram-negative bacteria to tigecycline. BMC Infect Dis 2021;21:709.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Li H, Zhou M, Chen X, Zhang Y, Jian Z, Yan Q, et al. Comparative evaluation of seven tigecycline susceptibility testing methods for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Infect Drug Resist 2021;14:1511-6.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Yin D, Guo Y, Li M, Wu W, Tang J, Liu Y, et al. Performance of VITEK 2, E-test, Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion, and modified Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion compared to reference broth microdilution for testing tigecycline susceptibility of carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae and A. baumannii in a multicenter study in China. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2021;40:1149-54.  Back to cited text no. 33
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Thomas S Kuruvilla,
Flat No. 504, Muller Nest, Father Muller Doctor's Quarters, Jeppu, Mangalore - 575 002, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ajim.ajim_53_22



    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
   Ahead Of Print
  
 Article in PDF
     Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Wilson LA
    -  Kuruvilla TS


Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed139    
    PDF Downloaded6    

Recommend this journal