Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

erm gene distribution among Norwegian Bacteroides isolates and evaluation of phenotypic tests to detect inducible clindamycin resistance in Bacteroides species.

Anaerobe 2017 October
The aims of this study were to describe the distribution of the most common erm genes in a collection of Norwegian Bacteroides isolates and to investigate whether the phenotypic tests for determining inducible clindamycin resistance among Bacteroides species recommended by EUCAST, NordicAST and the manufacturer of E-test® , are effective. We investigated 175 unique Bacteroides isolates for the presence of erm(B), erm(F) and erm(G) genes, determined their minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) to clindamycin and categorised their susceptibility according to EUCAST breakpoints. 27 isolates were resistant to clindamycin. Furthermore, we investigated whether these recommended methods could detect inducible resistance in the Bacteroides isolates: 1) EUCAST recommendation: Dissociated resistance to erythromycin (clindamycin susceptible with erythromycin MIC > 32 mg/L), 2) NordicAST recommendation: Double disk diffusion test (DDD) or 3) Manufacturer of E-test® 's recommendation: prolonged incubation of clindamycin E-test® for 48 h. erm genes were detected in 30 (17%, 95% CI 12%-23%) of 175 Bacteroides isolates with erm(F) as the dominating gene. There were six (4%, 95% CI 1%-7%) of 148 clindamycin susceptible isolates harbouring erm genes, they were considered inducibly resistant to clindamycin. None of the methods for phenotypic detection of inducible clindamycin resistance performed satisfactory with sensitivities of 33%, 17% and 0% and specificities of 90%, 99% and 97% for dissociated resistance, DDD and prolonged incubation of clindamycin E-test® , respectively. In our view, the scientific basis for investigating every Bacteroides isolate for inducible resistance to clindamycin is weak. Molecular detection of erm genes may prove a better option than the phenotypic methods we evaluated.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app