4.2 Article

The Burden of Rifampicin- and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Italy

期刊

MICROBIAL DRUG RESISTANCE
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 732-738

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/mdr.2017.0299

关键词

RIF-R-MRSA clones; rifampicin resistance; rpoB; hVISA; DNS phenotypes

资金

  1. National Operational Programme for Research and Competitiveness [PON01_02589]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rifampicin is one of the major drugs used on its own and also in combination to treat numerous infections sustained by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In Italy, rifampicin resistance (RIF-R) is increasing in multidrug-resistant-MRSA isolates (16.4%), with respect to Europe (5.7%). In our study, the relationship between clones, rpoB mutations, and susceptibility profiles in 50 RIF-R MRSA isolated from hospitalized patients was evaluated. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by the broth microdilution method. Isolates were typed by MLST/SCCmec/spa-typing. The rpoB gene was analyzed by PCR and sequence analysis. RIF-R isolates were 60% heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (hVISA) and 22% daptomycin nonsusceptible and belonged to the major MRSA clones: ST228-SCCmec I (44%), ST8-SCCmec IV (18%), ST239-SCCmec III (16%), ST5-SCCmec II (14%), and ST22-SCCmec IVh (4%). Thirteen diverse RpoB amino acid substitutions were identified. Half of the strains harbored the H481N substitution, conferring low-level resistance. Different single mutations at the equivalent locus (H481D; H481Y) or in other loci, and multiple mutations conferred high-level resistance. In conclusion, this study investigated the nature of RIF-R in Italy among RIF-R-MRSA strains, finding a prevalence of ST228, strongly associated with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides (hVISA). The spread of RIF-R strains in clinical settings represents a serious threat, due to their complex resistance nature even to new anti-Gram-positive drugs, making these infections particularly difficult to treat.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据