0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Contribution |

Macrolide Resistance Among Invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae Isolates FREE

Terri B. Hyde, MD; Kathryn Gay, VMD, MS; David S. Stephens, MD; Duc J. Vugia, MD, MPH; Margaret Pass, MS; Susan Johnson; Nancy L. Barrett, MS, MPH; William Schaffner, MD; Paul R. Cieslak, MD; Peggy S. Maupin; Elizabeth R. Zell, MStat; James H. Jorgensen, PhD; Richard R. Facklam, PhD; Cynthia G. Whitney, MD, MPH; for the Active Bacterial Core Surveillance/Emerging Infections Program Network
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases (Drs Hyde, Facklam, and Whitney and Ms Zell), Epidemic Intelligence Service, Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Dr Hyde), and Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Drs Stephens and Gay), Atlanta, Ga; California Department of Health and Human Services, Berkeley (Dr Vugia); Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Md (Ms Pass); Minnesota Department of Health, School of Public Health, Minneapolis (Ms Johnson); Connecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford (Ms Barrett); Department of Preventive Medicine, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (Dr Schaffner); Oregon Department of Human Service, Health Division, Portland (Dr Cieslak); Monroe County Health Department of Human Service, Rochester, NY (Ms Maupin); and University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio (Dr Jorgensen).
Listings of members of the Active Bacterial Core Surveillance/Emerging Infections Program Network were published previously (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1917 and JAMA. 2001;285:1729).


JAMA. 2001;286(15):1857-1862. doi:10.1001/jama.286.15.1857.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context Macrolide antibiotics, including erythromycin, clarithromycin, and azithromycin, are the mainstays of empirical pneumonia therapy. Macrolide resistance among Streptococcus pneumoniae, the most common cause of community-acquired pneumonia, is increasing in the United States. Whether resistance is a significant problem or whether macrolides remain useful for treatment of most resistant strains is unknown.

Objective To examine the epidemiology of macrolide-resistant pneumococci in the United States.

Design and Setting Analysis of 15 481 invasive isolates from 1995 to 1999 collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Active Bacterial Core surveillance system in 8 states.

Main Outcome Measures Trends in macrolide use (1993-1999) and resistance and factors associated with resistance, including examination of 2 subtypes, the M phenotype, associated with moderate minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), and the MLSB phenotype, associated with high MICs and clindamycin resistance.

Results From 1993 to 1999, macrolide use increased 13%; macrolide use increased 320% among children younger than 5 years. Macrolide resistance increased from 10.6% in 1995 to 20.4% in 1999. M phenotype isolates increased from 7.4% to 16.5% (P<.001), while the proportion with the MLSB phenotype was stable (3%-4%). The median erythromycin MIC (MIC50) of M phenotype isolates increased from 4 µg/mL to 8 µg/mL. In 1999, M phenotype strains were more often from children than persons 5 years or older (25.2% vs 12.6%; P<.001) and from whites than blacks (19.3% vs 11.2%; P<.001).

Conclusions In the setting of increasing macrolide use, pneumococcal resistance has become common. Most resistant strains have MICs in the range in which treatment failures have been reported. Further study and surveillance are critical to understanding the clinical implications of our findings.

Figures in this Article

Macrolides are recommended as first-line therapy for adults in the United States and Canada with community-acquired pneumonia.13 Newer macrolides (eg, azithromycin, clarithromycin) are popular because of convenient dosing schedules and fewer adverse effects. Unfortunately, resistance to macrolides among Streptococcus pneumoniae, the most common cause of community-acquired pneumonia,4 has been increasing in the United States.58

Pneumococcal macrolide resistance is usually expressed as 1 of 2 phenotypes. The first, known as M phenotype, is an efflux pump associated with the mefE gene that results in efflux of macrolides from the cell.9 These organisms exhibit resistance to 14- and 15-member macrolide antibiotics, including erythromycin, clarithromycin, and azithromycin. M phenotype isolates typically have moderate levels of macrolide resistance (ie, minimum inhibitory concentrations [MICs] in the range of 1-32 µg/mL) and are almost always susceptible to clindamycin.10 A second phenotype, MLSB, results from methylation of adenine residues in the 23S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) peptidyl transferase center, domain 5, and is the result of the ermAM gene encoding the erythromycin-ribosomal methylase.11,12 The methylation blocks the binding of macrolide, lincosamide (eg, clindamycin), and streptogramin B (eg, quinupristin/dalfopristin) antibiotics. The MLSB phenotype is associated with very high macrolide MICs (>64 µg/mL) and resistance to clindamycin. This phenotype is often associated with resistance to tetracyclines and chloramphenicol, as genes encoding this resistance phenotype can be clustered on conjugative and composite transposons.10 Other reported mechanisms of erythromycin resistance are rare10,13; therefore, the resistance phenotypes described above correlate well with genetic subtype.14

Resistance phenotypes may have relevance for clinicians; some have postulated that MICs of M phenotype strains are in a range where pneumonia patients may respond to newer macrolides,15 whereas MICs of MLSB phenotype strains clearly are in a range where treatment failures could occur. Gay et al16 reported that increases in the proportion of pneumococci with M phenotype explained the increase in macrolide resistance. The study also noted that the macrolide MICs of M phenotype isolates were increasing. We examined trends of macrolide resistance among invasive S pneumoniae across the United States, trends in macrolide use, the prevalence of strains with M and MLSB phenotypes, factors associated with macrolide resistance, and MICs of macrolide-resistant isolates.

From 1995 to 1999, the Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) system conducted continuous active, laboratory-based surveillance for invasive S pneumoniae in 30 counties (15.4 million people, estimated population in 1999) throughout Georgia, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, and Maryland as well as the entire state of Connecticut.8 A 7-county New York area joined ABCs in 1998. The state of New York is included in the 1999 surveillance results, but is not included in the overall trend analysis due to lack of continuous data. ABCs defines a case of invasive pneumococcal disease as the isolation of S pneumoniae from a normally sterile site. ABCs methods are defined elsewhere.8,17

Isolates were defined as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant to agents tested according to National Committee for Clinicial Laboratory Standards definitions.18 We defined an isolate as being macrolide-resistant if it was intermediate or resistant to a particular agent. Erythromycin-resistant isolates (MIC >0.5 µg/mL) were further classified as having either M or MLSB phenotype. Isolates that were erythromycin-resistant and clindamycin-susceptible were classified as M phenotype, and those that were both erythromycin- and clindamycin-resistant were classified as MLSB phenotype.14

Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 6 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) statistical software. We used the χ2 test to compare proportions and χ2 test for trend with temporal analyses. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. Cumulative incidence rates for 1999 were calculated using 1999 population estimates from the US Census Bureau. Data for macrolide prescriptions in the United States were obtained from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey/National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.1921

We determined odds ratios for groups at risk for macrolide-resistant infections in 1999 using multivariable logistic regression modeling. We constructed 2 logistic regression models: (1) erythromycin-susceptible vs M phenotype and (2) erythromycin-susceptible vs MLSB phenotype. The dependent (outcome) variable was erythromycin susceptibility and the independent (predictor) variables included ABCs site, age group, race, and penicillin susceptibility. We assessed colinearity and 2-way interactions for all variables in the final multivariable model.

Resistance Trends, 1995-1999

From 1995 to 1999, 18430 cases of invasive S pneumoniae infection were identified in 7 ABCs areas (excluding New York) ranging from 2505 in 1995 to 3419 in 1999. Isolates from 15 481 (84%) cases underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 2273 (14.7%) had decreased susceptibility to macrolides; 18 (0.1%) were intermediate and 2255 (14.6%) fully resistant. Macrolide resistance increased from 10.6% of S pneumoniae isolates in 1995 to 20.4% in 1999. Increases in the proportion of isolates with macrolide resistance were seen in each individual surveillance site; increases were significant in all states except California (P = .20).

The proportion of isolates with M phenotype increased from 7.4% in 1995 to 16.5% in 1999 (P<.001) and accounted for the overall increase seen in macrolide resistance. An increase in the proportion of isolates with M phenotype was seen for children younger than 5 years and persons 5 years or older (Figure 1A and Figure 1B). The erythromycin MIC50 increased in M phenotype isolates from 4 µg/mL in 1995 to 8 µg/mL in 1999. During the 5-year period, the proportion of isolates with MLSB phenotypes remained stable (3.4% in 1995 and 3.7% in 1999).

Figure. Temporal Trends in Macrolide Resistance Among Invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae Isolates and Macrolide Use
Graphic Jump Location
Susceptibility data are from Active Bacterial Core Surveillance, 1995-1999; macrolide prescription rates are from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey/National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1993-1998.
Macrolide Use, 1993-1999

The number of macrolide prescriptions increased significantly (13%) from approximately 17.7 million prescriptions (69 prescriptions/1000 persons) in 1993 to approximately 21.2 million prescriptions (78 prescriptions/1000 persons) in 1999 (P = .01). The most dramatic increases were among children younger than 5 years, in whom macrolide prescriptions increased 320% from 0.7 million prescriptions (37 prescriptions/1000 persons) in 1993 to approximately 3.1 million prescriptions (164 prescriptions/1000 persons) in 1999 (Figure 1A). In children younger than 5 years, azithromycin has comprised the majority of recent macrolide prescriptions with nearly 0.8 million prescriptions (41 prescriptions/1000 persons) in 1996 increasing to nearly 2.3 million prescriptions (120 prescriptions/1000 persons) in 1999. Total macrolide prescription rates among individuals 5 years and older was unchanged with 16.9 prescriptions (71 prescriptions/1000 persons) in 1993 and 18.1 million prescriptions (71 prescriptions/1000 persons) in 1999 (Figure 1B). In this group, azithromycin accounted for 3 million prescriptions (12 prescriptions/1000 persons) in 1996 and 7.8 million prescriptions (37 prescriptions/1000 persons) in 1999. Prescriptions for all antibiotics decreased 15% (535 to 450 prescriptions/1000 persons from 1993 to 1999, respectively) with a 20% decrease among those younger than 5 years (1408 to 1130 prescriptions/1000 persons from 1993 to 1999, respectively).

Surveillance Results, 1999

We identified 4132 invasive pneumococcal cases in the ABCs areas in 1999, of which 3620 (87.6%) isolates underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing. S pneumoniae was isolated from patients with bacteremic pneumonia (n = 1957, 54.1%), bacteremia and no focal diagnosis (n = 1342, 37.1%), meningitis (n = 192, 5.3%), and other diagnoses (n = 129, 3.6%). Children younger than 5 years were the source for 913 (25.2%) isolates. Isolates collected in each surveillance region ranged from 199 in California to 726 in Georgia.

Overall, 709 (19.6%) strains were fully resistant (MIC ≥1.0 µg/mL) and 2 (0.1%) strains were intermediate (MIC = 0.5 µg/mL) to erythromycin. M phenotype isolates accounted for 82% and MLSB phenotype accounted for 18% of macrolide-resistant isolates. Macrolide resistance was more common in infections occurring in children younger than 5 years (279/913, 30.6%) than in individuals 5 years and older (431/2698, 16.0%; P = .001). The proportion of macrolide-resistant isolates was higher among whites (439/1914, 22.9%) than blacks (179/1246, 14.4%; P = .001). Macrolide resistance was most common in Georgia (31.5%) and Tennessee (29.1%) and least common in New York (9.0%) and California (8.5%).

Serotype information was available for 3617 (87.5%) isolates, 19.6% of which were macrolide-resistant. Serotype 14 accounted for 44.5% of resistant strains. Among macrolide-resistant isolates, 87% of strains from children younger than 5 years and 72% of strains from individuals 5 years and older were serotypes included in the 7-valent conjugate vaccine. For those individuals 5 years and older, 95% of macrolide-resistant isolates were serotypes represented in the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.

M Phenotype, 1999

A multivariable analysis of independent factors associated with M phenotype found a significantly higher proportion of M phenotype isolates among children younger than 5 years than from individuals 5 years and older (P<.001), from whites than from blacks (P<.001), and from individuals living in Georgia (P = .002), Tennessee (P = .01), and Minnesota (P = .01) compared with those living in California (Table 1). Decreased susceptibility to penicillin was found to be an independent factor associated with M phenotype in the multivariable model (P<.001).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Factors Associated With Macrolide Resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae, Active Bacterial Core Surveillance, 1999*

M phenotype isolates seldom had reduced susceptibility to chloramphenicol (7.9%) or tetracycline (16.1%), but commonly had reduced susceptibility to other antimicrobial agents including penicillin (81.1%), cefotaxime (60.5%), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (87.8%) (Table 2). Very few of the isolates were resistant to fluoroquinolones (0.3%). In 1999, the median erythromycin MIC50 was 8 µg/mL in all sites except Georgia and Oregon, where erythromycin MIC50 was 16 µg/ml or greater. Ten percent of M phenotype isolates had an erythromycin MIC50 of 16 µg/mL or greater.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Macrolide-Susceptible and Resistant Pneumococcal Isolates Resistant to Other Antibiotic Agents, Active Bacterial Core Surveillance, 1999*

Twenty-three different serotypes were found among 3617 isolates (Table 3). Among the 591 isolates with M phenotype, serotypes 14 (284, 48.0%), 6A (65, 10.9%), 23F (44, 7.4%), 19F (40, 6.8%), and 6B (37, 6.3%) were the most common. These serotypes are reported as percentages of their respective phenotypes.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Serotype Distribution Among Invasive Pneumococcal Isolates by Macrolide Resistance Phenotype, 1999*
MLS

The MLSB phenotype accounted for 128 (18%) of macrolide-resistant isolates. In the multivariable analysis, only decreased susceptibility to penicillin was found to be independently associated with the MLSB phenotype (P<.001) (Table 1). The majority of MLSB phenotype isolates displayed reduced susceptibility to chloramphenicol (56.2%), tetracycline (85.9%), penicillin (85.1%), cefotaxime (57.0%), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (87.5%) (Table 2). Four serotypes—6B (30.2%), 14 (20.6%), 23F (19.8%), and 19F (12.7%)—made up the majority of MLSB phenotype isolates (Table 3). These serotypes are reported as percentages of their respective phenotypes.

Macrolide resistance is now common in the United States among invasive pneumococci. In the setting of increasing macrolide use, the prevalence of macrolide resistance among pneumococci doubled from 1995 to 1999 and M phenotype accounted for this increase. Although M phenotype isolates were previously thought to be less concerning because of relatively low erythromycin MICs, in our sample they had increasingly higher erythromycin MICs and were often resistant to other antibiotic agents. The proportion of all invasive pneumococcal isolates with MLSB phenotype did not change during our 5-year period of observation. The M phenotype has become the dominant resistance mechanism likely due to a combination of successful spread of clones within the pediatric population in the United States16 and selective pressure of macrolide use in this population.

Other countries have reported the MLSB phenotype as more common.2225 Globally, the predominant phenotype for macrolide-resistant pneumococci varies regionally. The M phenotype is predominant in North America,6,26 while several European countries have reported the dominance of MLSB phenotype.22,27 Differences in types of antibiotic used and prevalence of resistant clones probably account for this difference.

The observed increase in erythromycin MICs over this short time among M phenotype isolates is concerning. For maximum efficacy, an antibiotic should reach concentrations at the infection site higher than the specific antibiotic MIC in the infecting organism. It is unclear whether pneumococci with M phenotype are clinically significant, especially since newer macrolides (eg, clarithromycin and azithromycin) achieve higher concentrations intracellularly in tissue and in the epithelial lining fluid of the lung than concentrations achieved in blood.28,29 We found, however, that most M phenotype isolates have erythromycin MICs of at least 8 µg/mL, an MIC at which treatment failures with clarithromycin and azithromycin have been reported.30 Therefore, careful study and surveillance of the effect of pneumococcal macrolide resistance on clinical outcome are critical to further understanding the clinical relevance of our findings.

Similar to earlier studies for penicillin resistance,5,7,11 we found that M phenotype was more common among isolates from children younger than 5 years of age, of white race, and those who lived in certain geographic locations. Among children younger than 5 years, factors such as higher incidence of nasopharyngeal carriage of S pneumoniae,3134 day care attendance, and high frequency of antibiotic use may explain higher rates of macrolide-resistant strains. Both high rates of macrolide use and increasing macrolide-resistant pneumococcal infections among young children may contribute to the spread of macrolide-resistant pneumococcus throughout the population. However, children younger than 5 years account for only a small proportion of the overall use of macrolides. Although overall macrolide use did not increase among individuals 5 years and older, macrolide use in this group may also contribute selective pressure for macrolide-resistant pneumococci.

This study has a few limitations. First, we looked at phenotypic expression of macrolide resistance using clindamycin susceptibility as a marker for M or MLSB phenotype, rather than directly examining the mefE and ermAM genes. Other macrolide resistance mechanisms are rare in pneumococci and the relationship between phenotype and genotype has been confirmed.11,12,16 Thus, our approximation should be adequate to describe trends. Second, the MIC panels (highest MIC >16 µg/mL) used did not determine actual MICs for many M phenotype and the majority of MLSB phenotype isolates. We were, however, able to assess the proportion of M phenotype isolates in the range where treatment failures may occur (MIC ≥8 µg/mL). MLSB phenotype isolates typically have MICs of 64 µg/mL or greater.10

Macrolides are important therapeutic agents. Clinical treatment guidelines for empiric therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in adults have recommended using macrolides as first-line agents.13 The increasing frequency of macrolide resistance among pneumococci and increasing MICs among resistant strains suggest that these treatment recommendations may need reevaluation. Alternative antimicrobial agents for macrolide-resistant infections exist or are in development. For young children who are penicillin-allergic, however, the management of respiratory tract infections may become problematic because doxycycline and fluoroquinolones are not available as alternatives for this age group.

Strategies to control increasing macrolide resistance are needed. A study in Finland demonstrated reduction in mefE-mediated resistance among Streptococcus pyogenes after a practice guideline limiting macrolide prescriptions for pharyngitis was instituted.35 Whether significant reduction in macrolide use is achievable through campaigns promoting appropriate antibiotic use or whether reductions in use will lead to reductions in macrolide-resistant pneumococci is unknown. Total antibiotic prescriptions have decreased since 1993 among all age groups, but our data show that macrolide prescriptions have increased dramatically in children. Given the high proportion of macrolide-resistant pneumococci among the pediatric population, decreasing inappropriate antibiotic use especially with macrolides is important to the success of strategies that will reduce macrolide resistance.

The new heptavalent pneumococcal-conjugate vaccine should provide coverage against most macrolide-resistant pneumococcal strains. Use of this vaccine in children has the potential to significantly change the trends observed but new serotypes not covered by the vaccine may become macrolide-resistant with continued antibiotic pressure. Pneumococci are again showing their remarkable ability to adapt to their environment, and it remains our challenge to utilize macrolides and other antibiotic agents appropriately and promote rapid introduction of effective pneumococcal vaccines.

Bartlett JG, Dowell SF, Mandell LA, File TMJ, Fine MJ. Practice guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults.  Clin Infect Dis.2000;31:347-382.
Heffelfinger JD, Dowell SF, Jorgensen JH.  et al.  Management of community-acquired pneumonia in the era of pneumococcal resistance: a report from the drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae therapeutic working group.  Arch Intern Med.2000;160:1399-1408.
American Thoracic Society.  Guidelines for the initial management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: diagnosis, assessment of severity, and initial antimicrobial therapy.  Am Rev Respir Dis.1993;148:1418-1426.
Marston BJ, Plouffe JF, File Jr TM.  et al.  Incidence of community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization: results of a population-based active surveillance study in Ohio.  Arch Intern Med.1997;157:1709-1718.
Doern GV, Brueggemann A, Holley HPJ, Rauch AM. Antimicrobial resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae recovered from outpatients in the United States during the winter months of 1994 to 1995: results of a 30-center national surveillance study.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother.1996;40:1208-1213.
Doern GV, Pfaller MA, Kugler K, Freeman J, Jones RN. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among respiratory isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae in North America: 1997 results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program.  Clin Infect Dis.1998;27:764-770.
Breiman RF, Butler JC, Tenover FC, Elliott JA, Facklam RR. Emergence of drug-resistant pneumococcal infections in the United States.  JAMA.1994;271:1831-1835.
Whitney CG, Farley MM, Hadler J.  et al.  Increasing prevelance of multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in the United States: a report from multi-state, population-based surveillance.  N Engl J Med.2000;343:1917-1924.
Sutcliffe J, Tait-Kamradt A, Wondrack L. Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes resistant to macrolides but sensitive to clindamycin: a common resistance pattern mediated by an efflux system.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother.1996;40:1817-1824.
Johnston NJ, DeAzavedo JC, Kellner JD, Low DE. Prevalence and characterization of the mechanisms of macrolide, lincosamide, and streptogramin resistance in isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae Antimicrob Agents Chemother.1998;42:2425-2426.
Weisblum B. Inducible resistance to macrolides, lincosamides and streptogramin type B antibiotics: the resistance phenotype, its biological diversity, and structural elements that regulate expression—a review.  J Antimicrob Chemother.1985;16(suppl A):63-90.
Arthur M, Brisson-Noel A, Courvalin P. Origin and evolution of genes specifying resistance to macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin antibiotics: data and hypotheses.  J Antimicrob Chemother.1987;20:783-802.
Roberts MC, Sutcliffe J, Courvalin P, Jensen LB, Rood J, Seppala H. Nomenclature for macrolide and macrolide-lincosamide streptogramin B resistance determinants.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother.1999;43:2823-2830.
Waites K, Johnson C, Gray B, Edwards K, Crain M, Benjamin Jr W. Use of clindamycin disks to detect macrolide resistance mediated by ermB and mefE in Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates from adults and children.  J Clin Microbiol.2000;38:1731-1734.
Amsden GW. Pneumococcal macrolide resistance—myth or reality?  J Antimicrob Chemother.1999;44:1-6.
Gay K, Baughman W, Miller Y.  et al.  The emergence of Streptococcus pneumoniae resistant to macrolide antimicrobial agents: a 6-year population-based assessment.  J Infect Dis.2000;182:1417-1424.
Robinson KA, Baughman W, Rothrock G.  et al.  Epidemiology of invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae infections in the United States, 1995-1998: opportunities for prevention in the conjugate vaccine era.  JAMA.2001;285:1729-1735.
National Committee on Clinical Laboratory Standards.  Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Eleventh Informational Supplement. Wayne, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 2001. NCCLS document M100-S10.
National Center for Health Statistics.  National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1993-1999 Summary. Hyattsville, Md: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2001.
National Center for Health Statistics.  National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1993-1999 Emergency Department Summary. Hyattsville, Md: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2001.
National Center for Health Statistics.  National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1993-1999 Outpatient Department Summary. Hyattsville, Md: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2001.
Lagrou K, Peetermans WE, Verhaegen J, Lierde SV, Verbist L, Eldere JV. Macrolide resistance in Belgian Streptococcus pneumoniae J Antimicrob Chemother.2000;45:119-121.
Marchese A, Tonoli E, Debbia EA, Schito GC. Macrolide resistance mechanisms and expression of phenotypes among Streptococcus pneumoniae circulating in Italy.  J Antimicrob Chemother.1999;44:461-464.
Tait-Kamradt A, Davies T, Appelbaum PC.  et al.  Two new mechanisms of macrolide resistance in clinical strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae from Eastern Europe and North America.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother.2000;44:3395-3401.
Widdowson CA, Klugman KP. Emergence of M phenotype of erythromycin-resistant pneumococci in South Africa.  Emerg Infect Dis.1998;4:277-281.
Shortridge VD, Doern GV, Bruggemann AB, Beyer JM, Flamm RK. Prevalence of macrolide resistance mechanisms in Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates from a multicenter antibiotic resistance surveillance study conducted in the United States in 1994-1995.  Clin Infect Dis.1999;29:1186-1188.
Nishijima T, Saito Y, Aoki A, Toriya M, Toyonaga Y, Fujii R. Distribution of mefE and ermB genes in macrolide-resistant strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae and their variable susceptibility to various antibiotics.  J Antimicrob Chemother.1999;43:637-643.
Gladue RP, Bright GM, Isaacson RE, Newborg MF. In vitro and in vivo uptake of azithromycin (CP-62,993) by phagocytic cells: possible mechanism of delivery and release at sites of infection.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother.1989;33:277-282.
McCracken GH. Microbiologic activity of the newer macrolide antibiotics.  Pediatr Infect Dis J.1997;16:432-437.
Kelley MA, Weber DJ, Gilligan P, Cohen MS. Breakthrough pneumococcal bacteremia in patients being treated with azithromycin and clarithromycin.  Clin Infect Dis.2000;31:1008-1011.
Duchin JS, Breiman RF, Diamond A, Lipman HB, Block SL, Hendrick JA. High prevalance of multidrug resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae among children in a rural Kentucky community.  Pediatr Infect Dis J.1995;14:745-750.
Boken DJ, Chartrand SA, Goering RV, Kruger R, Harrison CJ. Colonization with penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in a child-care center.  Pediatr Infect Dis J.1995;14:879-884.
Zenni MK, Cheatham SH, Thompson JM, Reed GW, Batson AB, Palmer PS. Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization in the young child: association with otitis media and resistance to penicillin.  J Pediatr.1995;127:533-537.
McCaig LF, Hughes JM. Trends in antimicrobial drug prescribing among office-based physicians in the United States.  JAMA.1995;273:214-219.
Seppala H, Klaukka T, Vuopio-Varkila J.  et al.  The effect of changes in the consumption of macrolide antibiotics on erythromycin resistance in group A streptococci in Finland: Finnish study group for antimicrobial resistance.  N Engl J Med.1997;337:441-446.

Figures

Figure. Temporal Trends in Macrolide Resistance Among Invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae Isolates and Macrolide Use
Graphic Jump Location
Susceptibility data are from Active Bacterial Core Surveillance, 1995-1999; macrolide prescription rates are from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey/National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1993-1998.

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Factors Associated With Macrolide Resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae, Active Bacterial Core Surveillance, 1999*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Macrolide-Susceptible and Resistant Pneumococcal Isolates Resistant to Other Antibiotic Agents, Active Bacterial Core Surveillance, 1999*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Serotype Distribution Among Invasive Pneumococcal Isolates by Macrolide Resistance Phenotype, 1999*

References

Bartlett JG, Dowell SF, Mandell LA, File TMJ, Fine MJ. Practice guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults.  Clin Infect Dis.2000;31:347-382.
Heffelfinger JD, Dowell SF, Jorgensen JH.  et al.  Management of community-acquired pneumonia in the era of pneumococcal resistance: a report from the drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae therapeutic working group.  Arch Intern Med.2000;160:1399-1408.
American Thoracic Society.  Guidelines for the initial management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: diagnosis, assessment of severity, and initial antimicrobial therapy.  Am Rev Respir Dis.1993;148:1418-1426.
Marston BJ, Plouffe JF, File Jr TM.  et al.  Incidence of community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization: results of a population-based active surveillance study in Ohio.  Arch Intern Med.1997;157:1709-1718.
Doern GV, Brueggemann A, Holley HPJ, Rauch AM. Antimicrobial resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae recovered from outpatients in the United States during the winter months of 1994 to 1995: results of a 30-center national surveillance study.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother.1996;40:1208-1213.
Doern GV, Pfaller MA, Kugler K, Freeman J, Jones RN. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among respiratory isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae in North America: 1997 results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program.  Clin Infect Dis.1998;27:764-770.
Breiman RF, Butler JC, Tenover FC, Elliott JA, Facklam RR. Emergence of drug-resistant pneumococcal infections in the United States.  JAMA.1994;271:1831-1835.
Whitney CG, Farley MM, Hadler J.  et al.  Increasing prevelance of multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in the United States: a report from multi-state, population-based surveillance.  N Engl J Med.2000;343:1917-1924.
Sutcliffe J, Tait-Kamradt A, Wondrack L. Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes resistant to macrolides but sensitive to clindamycin: a common resistance pattern mediated by an efflux system.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother.1996;40:1817-1824.
Johnston NJ, DeAzavedo JC, Kellner JD, Low DE. Prevalence and characterization of the mechanisms of macrolide, lincosamide, and streptogramin resistance in isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae Antimicrob Agents Chemother.1998;42:2425-2426.
Weisblum B. Inducible resistance to macrolides, lincosamides and streptogramin type B antibiotics: the resistance phenotype, its biological diversity, and structural elements that regulate expression—a review.  J Antimicrob Chemother.1985;16(suppl A):63-90.
Arthur M, Brisson-Noel A, Courvalin P. Origin and evolution of genes specifying resistance to macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin antibiotics: data and hypotheses.  J Antimicrob Chemother.1987;20:783-802.
Roberts MC, Sutcliffe J, Courvalin P, Jensen LB, Rood J, Seppala H. Nomenclature for macrolide and macrolide-lincosamide streptogramin B resistance determinants.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother.1999;43:2823-2830.
Waites K, Johnson C, Gray B, Edwards K, Crain M, Benjamin Jr W. Use of clindamycin disks to detect macrolide resistance mediated by ermB and mefE in Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates from adults and children.  J Clin Microbiol.2000;38:1731-1734.
Amsden GW. Pneumococcal macrolide resistance—myth or reality?  J Antimicrob Chemother.1999;44:1-6.
Gay K, Baughman W, Miller Y.  et al.  The emergence of Streptococcus pneumoniae resistant to macrolide antimicrobial agents: a 6-year population-based assessment.  J Infect Dis.2000;182:1417-1424.
Robinson KA, Baughman W, Rothrock G.  et al.  Epidemiology of invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae infections in the United States, 1995-1998: opportunities for prevention in the conjugate vaccine era.  JAMA.2001;285:1729-1735.
National Committee on Clinical Laboratory Standards.  Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Eleventh Informational Supplement. Wayne, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 2001. NCCLS document M100-S10.
National Center for Health Statistics.  National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1993-1999 Summary. Hyattsville, Md: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2001.
National Center for Health Statistics.  National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1993-1999 Emergency Department Summary. Hyattsville, Md: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2001.
National Center for Health Statistics.  National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1993-1999 Outpatient Department Summary. Hyattsville, Md: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2001.
Lagrou K, Peetermans WE, Verhaegen J, Lierde SV, Verbist L, Eldere JV. Macrolide resistance in Belgian Streptococcus pneumoniae J Antimicrob Chemother.2000;45:119-121.
Marchese A, Tonoli E, Debbia EA, Schito GC. Macrolide resistance mechanisms and expression of phenotypes among Streptococcus pneumoniae circulating in Italy.  J Antimicrob Chemother.1999;44:461-464.
Tait-Kamradt A, Davies T, Appelbaum PC.  et al.  Two new mechanisms of macrolide resistance in clinical strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae from Eastern Europe and North America.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother.2000;44:3395-3401.
Widdowson CA, Klugman KP. Emergence of M phenotype of erythromycin-resistant pneumococci in South Africa.  Emerg Infect Dis.1998;4:277-281.
Shortridge VD, Doern GV, Bruggemann AB, Beyer JM, Flamm RK. Prevalence of macrolide resistance mechanisms in Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates from a multicenter antibiotic resistance surveillance study conducted in the United States in 1994-1995.  Clin Infect Dis.1999;29:1186-1188.
Nishijima T, Saito Y, Aoki A, Toriya M, Toyonaga Y, Fujii R. Distribution of mefE and ermB genes in macrolide-resistant strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae and their variable susceptibility to various antibiotics.  J Antimicrob Chemother.1999;43:637-643.
Gladue RP, Bright GM, Isaacson RE, Newborg MF. In vitro and in vivo uptake of azithromycin (CP-62,993) by phagocytic cells: possible mechanism of delivery and release at sites of infection.  Antimicrob Agents Chemother.1989;33:277-282.
McCracken GH. Microbiologic activity of the newer macrolide antibiotics.  Pediatr Infect Dis J.1997;16:432-437.
Kelley MA, Weber DJ, Gilligan P, Cohen MS. Breakthrough pneumococcal bacteremia in patients being treated with azithromycin and clarithromycin.  Clin Infect Dis.2000;31:1008-1011.
Duchin JS, Breiman RF, Diamond A, Lipman HB, Block SL, Hendrick JA. High prevalance of multidrug resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae among children in a rural Kentucky community.  Pediatr Infect Dis J.1995;14:745-750.
Boken DJ, Chartrand SA, Goering RV, Kruger R, Harrison CJ. Colonization with penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in a child-care center.  Pediatr Infect Dis J.1995;14:879-884.
Zenni MK, Cheatham SH, Thompson JM, Reed GW, Batson AB, Palmer PS. Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization in the young child: association with otitis media and resistance to penicillin.  J Pediatr.1995;127:533-537.
McCaig LF, Hughes JM. Trends in antimicrobial drug prescribing among office-based physicians in the United States.  JAMA.1995;273:214-219.
Seppala H, Klaukka T, Vuopio-Varkila J.  et al.  The effect of changes in the consumption of macrolide antibiotics on erythromycin resistance in group A streptococci in Finland: Finnish study group for antimicrobial resistance.  N Engl J Med.1997;337:441-446.

Letters

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

* * SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE * *

Our websites may be periodically unavailable between midnight and 04:00 ET Thursday, July 10th, for regularly scheduled maintenance.

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 216

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles