4.7 Article

Emergence of optrA-mediated linezolid resistance in enterococci from France, 2006-16

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 74, Issue 6, Pages 1469-1472

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkz097

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. 'Sante Publique France', the French national public health agency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To describe the epidemiological trend of linezolid-resistant enterococci (LRE) collected in France from 2006 to 2016 and to extensively characterize LRE isolates. Methods: The National Reference Center for Enterococci (NRC-Enc) received enterococcal isolates suspected to be VRE and/or LRE from all French hospitals between 2006 and 2016. LRE isolates were phenotypically characterized and their genomes were entirely sequenced by Miseq (Illumina). Transfer of linezolid resistance was attempted by filter mating experiments. Results: Out of 3974 clinical isolates of enterococci received at the NRC-Enc over the period, 9 (0.2%) were LRE (MICs 8 to >32 mg/L), including 6 Enterococcus faecium and 3 Enterococcus faecalis. This overall prevalence significantly increased over the study period, reaching 0.8% in 2016. The five LRE isolated before 2016 were vanA-positive E. faecium whereas strains isolated in 2016 (one E. faecium and three E. faecalis) were susceptible to vancomycin. None of these isolates was part of an outbreak, while E. faecium strains were assigned to four different STs [17 (1), 80 (3), 412 (1) and 650 (1)] and all three E. faecalis belonged to ST480. Except for the strain isolated in 2010, all LRE were positive for optrA, which was located on plasmids (5/8) or in the chromosome (3/8). Plasmid transfer of optrA was successful in three cases. Conclusions: There has been a significant increase in the prevalence of LRE in France over time; this is due to the spread of optrA among E. faecium and E. faecalis human clinical isolates (VRE or not).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available