4.3 Article

High rates of multidrug resistance in Enterococcus faecalis and E. faecium isolated from inpatients and outpatients in Taiwan

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE
Volume 75, Issue 4, Pages 406-411

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.01.004

Keywords

Enterococcus faecalis; Enterococcus faecium; Vancomycin-resistant enterococci; Multidrug resistance; Antimicrobial resistance

Funding

  1. National Health Research Institutes [ID-098-PP-01, ID-099-PP-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Longitudinal national data on resistance in Enterococcus faecalis and E. faecium from different sources in Taiwan are rare. The present study analyzed data from the Taiwan Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance program to address this issue. Between 2002 and 2010, a total of 1696 E. faecalis and 452 E. faecium isolates were studied. Although these 2 species together comprised similar percentages of all enterococci in each study year (94.1-97.2%, P = 0.19), the proportion of E. faecium increased from 12.4% in 2002 to 27.3% in 2010 (P<0.001). The most noteworthy change in susceptibilities of these 2 species was vancomycin resistance in E. faecium (VREfm), which increased from 03% in 2004 to 24.9% in 2010 (P<0.001). VREfm prevalence differed significantly between geographic regions, patient age groups, and locations. Multidrug resistance was very common in both species even in isolates from outpatients (82.7% for E. faecalis and 98.1% for E. faecium), at rates similar to those from intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU patients (80.5-80.9% in E. faecalis and 97.2-98.6% in E. faecium). Nonsusceptibility to linezolid was <0.5% in both species. All tested isolates were susceptible to daptomycin. Continuous surveillance of VRE prevalence and survey of community reservoirs of multidrug-resistant enterococci are warranted. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available