Skip to main content
Log in

Susceptibility and tolerance of β-lactamase-producing, methicillin-sensitive strains of Staphylococcus aureus towards seven broad-spectrum penicillins

Sensibilität und Toleranz Betalaktamase-produzierender, Methicillin-sensibler Stämme von Staphylococcus aureus gegenüber sieben Breitspektrumpenicillinen

  • Originalia
  • Published:
Infection Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The activity of penicillin G, ampicillin, carbenicillin, ticarcillin, azlocillin, mezlocillin and piperacillin against 102 β-lactamase-producing, methicillin-sensitive strains ofStaphylococcus aureus was determined by agar dilution (method A) and broth microdilution (method B) techniques. By NCCLS breakpoint criteria, 4% of the strains were “sensitive” to penicillin and ampicillin, and almost 100% were “sensitive” to the other drugs when method A was used. Results with method B were only significantly lower as far as the cumulative percentage of strains “sensitive” to azlocillin, mezlocillin and piperacillin was concerned (63–71%). Bactericidal effects at “sensitive” levels were observed in 0–2% (penicillin, ampicillin), 31–35% (carbenicillin, ticarcillin) and 10–14% (azlocillin, mezlocillin, piperacillin). While differences in MIC and MBC levels ranged from 0 to 8 dilution steps, tolerance (a >32-fold difference) was seen in at least 9–22% of all strains (depending on the drug tested); experimental limitations, however, excluded a determination of tolerance in all our strains. In a semi-quantitative nitrocefin assay, “strong” β-lactamase production was correlated to high MIC and/or MBC levels.

Zusammenfassung

Die Aktivitäten von Penicillin G, Ampicillin, Carbenicillin, Ticarcillin, Azlocillin, Mezlocillin und Piperacillin gegen 102 β-Lactamase-produzierende, Methicillin-sensible Stämme vonStaphylococcus aureus wurden mit Hilfe einer Agardilution (A) und Bouillon-Mikrodilution (B) bestimmt. Unter Zugrundelegung der NCCLS-Kriterien erwiesen sich bei Verwendung der Methode A 4% der Stämme als „sensibel“ gegen Penicillin und Ampicillin und fast 100% „sensibel“ gegen die anderen Penicilline. Mit Methode B ergaben sich signifikante Differenzen gegenüber A lediglich bei Azlocillin, Mezlocillin und Piperacillin (63–71% „Sensibilität“). Bakterizidie-Effekte im „sensiblen“ Bereich ergaben sich bei 0–2% (Penicillin und Ampicillin), 31–35% (Carbenicillin und Ticarcillin) bzw. 10–14% (Azolocillin, Mezlocillin, Piperacillin). Differenzen zwischen MHK und MBK reichten von 0 bis 8 Verdünnungsstufen; und Toleranz (MBK> 32 MHK) wurde bei mindestens 9–22% der Stämme (je nach Antibiotikum) gesehen. Limitationen im Experiment ließen jedoch nicht bei allen Stämmen Auswertung auf Toleranz zu. Bei Verwendung einer semiquantitativen Nitrocefin-Bestimmungsmethode zeigte sich eine Korrelation zwischen „starker“ β-Laktamase-Produktion und hohen MHK- und/oder MBK-Werten.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature

  1. Watanakunakorn, C., Glotzbecker, C. In vitro activity of carbenicillin, ticarcillin, aminoglycosides and combinations againstStaphylococcus aureus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 5 (1979) 151–158.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wilkowske, C. J. The penicillins. Mayo Clin. Proc. 52 (1977) 616–624.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Eliopoulos, G. M., Moellering, Jr., R. C. Azlocillin, mezlocillin, and piperacillin: new broad-spectrum penicillins. Ann. Intern. Med. 97 (1982) 755–760.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gill, V. J., Manning, C. B., Ingalls, C. M. Correlation of penicillin minimum inhibitory concentrations and penicillin zone edge appearance with staphylococcal β-lactamase production. J. Clin. Microbiol. 14 (1981) 437–440.

    Google Scholar 

  5. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards: Performance standards for antimicrobic disc susceptibility tests. NCCLS 2 No. 2 (1982).

  6. Klastersky, J., Hensgens, C., Debusscher, L. Empiric therapy for cancer patients: comparative study of ticarcillin-tobramycin, ticarcillin-cephalothin, and cephalothin-tobramycin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 7 (1975) 640–645.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Zinner, S. H., Klastersky, J., Gaya, H., Bernard, C., Ryff, C., EORTC Antimicrobial Therapy Project Group In vitro andin vivo studies of three antibiotic combinations against gram-negative bacteria andStaphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 20 (1981) 463–469.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sabath, L. D., Wheeler, N., Laverdiere, M., Blazevic, D., Wilkinson, B. J. A new type of penicillin resistance ofStaphylococcus aureus. Lancet I (1977) 443–447.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Phaneuf, D., Neu, H. C. Agar disk diffusion susceptibility characteristics of azlocillin, carbenicillin, mezlocillin, piperacillin, and ticarcillin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 16 (1979) 625–630.

    Google Scholar 

  10. O'Callaghan, C. H., Morris, A., Kirby, S. M., Shingler, A. H. Novel method for detection of β-lactamase by using a chromogenic cephalosporin substrate. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1 (1972) 283–288.

    Google Scholar 

  11. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards: Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. NCCLS 3 No. 2 (1983).

  12. Sherris, J. C., Rashad, A. L., Lighthart, G. A. Laboratory determination of antibiotic susceptibility to ampicillin and cephalothin. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 145 (1967) 248–267.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gerlach, E. H.: Microdilution I: A comparative study. In:Balows, A. (ed.): Current techniques for antibiotic susceptibility testing. Springfield, Ill. 1974, pp. 63–76.

  14. Ericsson, H. M., Sherris, J. C. Antibiotic sensitivity testing. Report of an international collaborative study. Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand. B 217 Suppl. (1971) 1–90.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eickhoff, Th. C., Eheret, J. M. Comparative activityin vitro of ticarcillin, BL-P1654, and carbenicillin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 10 (1976) 241–244.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Norden, C. W., Keleti, E. Antibiotic tolerance in strains ofStaphylococcus aureus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 7 (1981) 599–605.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ishida, K., Guze, Ph. A., Kalmanson, G. M., Albrandt, K., Guze, L. B. Variables in demonstrating methicillin tolerance inStaphylococcus aureus strains. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 21 (1982) 688–690.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Taylor, P. C., Schoenknecht, F. D., Sherris, J. C., Linner, E. C. Determination of minimum bactericidal concentrations of oxacillin forStaphylococcus aureus: influence and significance of technical factors. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 23 (1983) 142–150.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Azimi, P. H. Correlation between the minimal inhibitory concentration of penicillin G forStaphylococcus aureus and the production of penicillinase. Abstracts of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, Abstract AIO, Washington, D. C. 1977.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This paper is dedicated to Prof.Walter Siegenthaler on the occasion of his 60th birthday.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wehrli, R., von Graevenitz, A. & Lüthy, R. Susceptibility and tolerance of β-lactamase-producing, methicillin-sensitive strains of Staphylococcus aureus towards seven broad-spectrum penicillins. Infection 11, 322–325 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01641357

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01641357

Keywords

Navigation