LJM 1993-2820 1819-6357 Libyan Journal of Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 0, November 2010, pp. 1–4 sici xxx PUBMED Abbreviation MohamedO.Ahmed

*Mohamed O. Ahmed, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Al Fateh UniversityP.O. Box 30313TripoliLibya+21 8925400914+21 8214628421

AbdulbasetR.Abuzweda MohamedH.Alghazali AsmaK.Elramalli SamiraG.Amri EzzeddinSh.Aghila YousefAbouzeed Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine AlFateh University

TripoliLibya

Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Biotechnology Research Centre

TripoliLibya

Tripoli Medical Centre

TripoliLibya

Burns and Plastic Surgery Centre

TripoliLibya

Libyan Journal of Medicine Short Communication MRSA in Tripoli, Libya Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a nosocomial (hospital-acquired) pathogen of exceptional concern. It is responsible for life-threatening infections in both the hospital and the community. Aims: To determine the frequency of MRSA misidentification in hospitals in Tripoli, Libya using current testing methods. Methods: One hundred and seventy S. aureus isolates previously identified as MRSA were obtained from three hospitals in Tripoli. All isolates were reidentified by culturing on mannitol salt agar, API 20 Staph System and retested for resistance to methicillin using the cefoxitin disk diffusion susceptibility test and PBP2a. D-tests and vancomycin E-tests (Van-E-tests) were also performed for vancomycin-resistant isolates. Results: Of the 170 isolates examined, 86 (51%) were confirmed as MRSA (i.e. 49% were misidentified as MRSA). Fifteen (17%) of the confirmed MRSA strains exhibited inducible clindamycin resistance. Of the 86 confirmed MRSA isolates, 13 (15%) were resistant to mupirocin, 53 (62%) were resistant to ciprofloxacin, 41 (48%) were resistant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and none were resistant to linezolid. Although disc-diffusion testing indicated that 23 (27%) of the isolates were resistant to vancomycin, none of the isolates were vancomycin-resistant by Van-E-test. Conclusions: Misidentification of nosocomial S. aureus as MRSA is a serious problem in Libyan hospitals. There is an urgent need for the proper training of microbiology laboratory technicians in standard antimicrobial susceptibility procedures and the implementation of quality control programs in microbiology laboratories of Libyan hospitals. MRSA misidentification clindamycin resistance E-test vancomycin resistance The ability of Staphylococcus aureus to acquire resistance to antibiotics has resulted in the emergence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) 1. MRSA is of great concern, as it causes life-threatening nosocomial and community-acquired infections 234. The resistance of MRSA to commonly used therapeutic drugs is widely reported and associated with failed therapy 5. Recent reports by Borg et al. provide evidence of MRSA hyperendemicity in the southeast Mediterranean 67 with important consequences for neighboring countries. However, these reports did not include data from Libya.Objectives: To evaluate current MRSA detection methods and determine the rate at which S. aureus isolates previously characterized as MRSA were misidentified in three hospitals in Tripoli, Libya. There were 170 MRSA isolates from clinical and environmental samples collected in the period 2008–2009 that were subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility testing at the Biotechnology Research Center in Tripoli, Libya. The samples were collected at three hospitals, referred to herein as hospitals A (n=95), B (n=13), and C (n=62), in Tripoli, Libya (Table 1). The collected isolates had been identified previously in each hospital as MRSA, initially based on cultural and microscopic characteristics on blood agar API system and gram staining for species determination as S. aureus. A non-referenced disk diffusion susceptibility test against certain and different antibiotics (i.e. oxacillin and cefoxitin) was also used to identify S. aureus as MRSA. Notably, none of the three hospitals used a quality control MRSA strain such as a referenced in-house strain or international recognized strain such as EMRSA-15. Hospital Number of previously identified MRSA cases Percentage of confirmed MRSA cases A 95 53 (56%) B 13 10 (76%) C 62 23 (37%) Total 170 86 (51%) The 170 isolates analyzed at the Biotechnology Research Center were initially identified as S. aureus strains based on selective culturing on mannitol salt agar (MSA) and the API Staph test (bioMerieux). The determination of MRSA was based on latex agglutination testing for PBP2a and the cefoxitin disc diffusion susceptibility test in accordance with the British Association of Antimicrobials and Chemotherapy guidelines (BSAC) 8.Isolates identified as MRSA were cultured overnight on sheep-blood agar, plated on Mueller-Hinton agar, and analyzed in disk diffusion susceptibility tests using the following antibiotics: ciprofloxacin (1 µg), erythromycin (5 µg), clindamycin (2 µg), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (1.25 µg), mupirocin (5 µg), quinupristin/dalfopristin (15 µg), vancomycin (5 µg), or linezolid (10 µg). After a 24-h incubation at 37°C, the zone diameter was measured and compared to MRSA-BSAC guidelines. The D-tests were also performed on isolates that exhibited resistance to erythromycin to test for inducible resistance to clindamycin (MLSB_i) 9. An E-test (AB bioMerieux) was performed on MRSA isolates that were vancomycin resistant in the disc diffusion susceptibility test, according to BSAC guidelines. In-house confirmed, positive control MRSA and MLSB_i–MRSA isolates were generously provided by Dr. Ahmed MO, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Al Fateh University All isolates were further confirmed as S. aureus. Of the 170 isolates previously identified at hospitals as MRSA, only 86 (51%) were confirmed as MRSA in the current study (Tables 1 and 2). Of the 86 confirmed MRSA isolates, 23 (27%) were resistant to erythromycin. The D-testing for inducible clindamycin resistance of erythromycin resistant MRSA isolates revealed that only 15 (17%) exhibited the MLSB_i phenotype. Resistance to ciprofloxacin was identified in 62% (53/86) of the confirmed MRSA isolates, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole resistance was identified in 48% (41/86) of the confirmed MRSA isolates. In contrast to the relatively high levels of resistance to fluoroquinolone and sulphonamide antibiotics, only 13 (15%) of the confirmed MRSA isolates were resistant to mupirocin and none of the confirmed MRSA isolates were resistant to linezolid. Out of the 86 confirmed MRSA isolates, 23 (27%) were vancomycin resistant as determined by the disc diffusion susceptibility test; however, the E-test failed to confirm resistance to vancomycin (Table 2). AMB resistance of confirmed MRSA isolates (%) Confirmed MRSA (%) CLI ERY MU STX CIP QU VAN LIN MLSB_i E-test (VAN) Note. AMB, antimicrobial; CLI, clindamycin; ERY, erythromycin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; SXT, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; MU, mupirocin; QU, quinupristin/dalfopristin; VAN, vancomycin; LIN, linezolid; MLSBi, macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B inducible resistance. 86 (51%) 19 (22%) 23 (27%) 13 (15%) 41 (48%) 53 (62%) 22 (26%) 23 (27%) 0 (0%) 15 (17%) 0 (0%) Until recently, most MRSA infections were acquired in hospital settings. Today, MRSA infections can occur in both rural and urban community settings 1011. In the current study, we determined the frequency of MRSA misidentification in hospitals in Tripoli, Libya using current testing methods. We found that only 51% of isolates previously identified as MRSA were confirmed as MRSA using current testing methods and standards (Table 1). A large number of the confirmed MRSA isolates in the current study exhibited resistance to fluoroquinolones. The MRSA resistance to ciprofloxacin is always associated with hospital-acquired MRSA, providing evidence that these isolates were hospital acquired 12. The levels of ciprofloxacin resistance identified in this Libyan study are relatively high relative to the average level of 25% for the Eastern Mediterranean, which ranges from 5% in Algeria to 40% in Turkey 6.In contrast to the relatively high levels of resistance to fluoroquinolone and sulphonamide antibiotics, only 13 (15%) of the confirmed MRSA isolates were mupirocin resistant and none of the confirmed MRSA isolates were resistant to linezolid. Similar levels of susceptibility to mupirocin (77%) and linezolid (95%) have been reported for MRSA isolates from Saudi Arabian hospitals 13. Our data, showing 100% susceptibility to linezolid, indicates that in Libya, as in Saudi Arabia, linezolid remains a valuable tool for combating MRSA infections, although it should be used cautiously. Resistance to mupirocin, as determined by the E-test, occurred in only a small proportion (i.e. 15%) of the confirmed MRSA isolates, suggesting that mupirocin ointment, the drug of choice for treating nasal colonization with MRSA, may still be effective in human therapy 14.Clindamycin is an important drug used for the treatment of staphylococcal infections. The MLSB resistance phenotypes (MLSB_C and MLSB_i) confer resistance to multiple antimicrobial drug classes (i.e. macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramines B). Clindamycin resistance was observed in 19/86 (22%) of the confirmed MRSA isolates in the current study, with inducible resistance seen in an additional 15 isolates. Notably, inducible resistance to clindamycin in MRSA (MLSB_i phenotype) has been shown to compromise therapy 1516 indicating the need for routine monitoring and susceptibility testing for both constitutive and inducible clindamycin resistance 1718 prior to therapy against MRSA infections in Libyan hospitals.The importance of including E-testing in determining vancomycin resistance is illustrated by the difference we observed in the number of vancomycin resistant isolates between the disc diffusion susceptibility test (23 resistant isolates) and the E-test (0 resistant isolates, MIC <2 mg/L). The interpretive criteria used here 8 set a break point of <4 mg/l for susceptible strains. Although the use of lower break points can indicate emerging vancomycin resistance 1920, our values were well within the susceptible range.The disc diffusion susceptibility test is a valuable method for the accurate, reliable detection of MRSA and for monitoring resistance trends 212223. Herein, we found that the results of disc diffusion susceptibility tests indicated that 24% of our isolates were resistant to vancomycin; however, the E-test did not confirm vancomycin resistance for any of the same strains, indicating that disk diffusion susceptibility testing alone is not sufficient 8. Although the disc diffusion susceptibility test should not be relied on to screen for resistance to certain antimicrobials (e.g. vancomycin) it is recommended as a preliminary screening test for resistance to many antimicrobials 2324. The results of the current study suggest that microbiologists in Libyan hospitals should not rely on disk diffusion susceptibility tests as a measure of vancomycin resistance. Furthermore, factors such as how disks and media are stored and maintained can certainly affect disk diffusion susceptibility test results. Medium components concentration (i.e. NACl of the MSA for instance) can affect the susceptibility testing results 25. Moreover, many other factors can also influence the results of disk diffusion susceptibility tests such as incubation temperature 25, which could lead to misidentification and misinterpretation. The potential impact of these confounding factors should certainly be considered in Libyan hospitals when testing for MRSA.It is extremely important for hospitals and microbiologists to follow standardized, reliable methods (e.g. BSAC, CLSI [formerly NCCLS] guidelines) for determining susceptibility to antimicrobials 25. The use and misuse of antimicrobials can lead to serious consequences, which may lead to an increase in the development and dissemination of MRSA 26. Meta-analysis linking antibiotic resistance to antibiotic use, both at the individual and institutional levels, has shown that antibiotic use is associated with a 1.8-fold increased risk of patient-acquired MRSA, and that glycopeptide or quinolone use is associated with a 3-fold increased risk of patient-acquired MRSA 914. These results underscore the need for a conservative approach to antimicrobial use. The results of this study also indicate that tests currently available and used in Tripoli hospitals are generating high false positive rates of MRSA, which could lead to the overuse of various classes of antibiotics and contribute to increased resistance. As the hospital management systems are identical in other parts of Libya, our findings indicate the urgent need for a wider study including a variety of scientific approaches to combat MRSA in Libya. Furthermore, implementing quality control programs in hospital microbiology laboratories and training of laboratory personnel should be mandatory. The authors declare no relationship (commercial or otherwise) that may constitute a dual or conflicting interest. All of the authors were personally dedicated to this work. We gratefully acknowledge all of the hospital personnel who helped at the three different hospitals. We also offer our special thanks for the help and support we received from members of the Biotechnology Research Center in Tripoli, Libya. The authors acknowledge the financial contribution of National authority of Scientific Research, Tripoli, Libya. JorgensenJH. Laboratory and epidemiologic experience with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the USA Eur J Clin Microbiol. 19865 69396 PalavecinoE. Clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory aspects of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (mrsa) infections Methods Mol Biol. 2007391 119 MartinsACunha MdeL. Methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci: epidemiological and molecular aspects Microbiol Immunol. 200751 78795 SchmitzFJPetridouJFluitACHaddingUPetersGvon EiffC. Distribution of macrolide-resistance genes in Staphylococcus aureus blood-culture isolates from fifteen German university hospitals. M.A.R.S. Study group. Multicentre study on antibiotic resistance in staphylococci Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 200019 3857 LewisJSJorgensenJH. Inducible clindamycin resistance in staphylococci: should clinicians and microbiologists be concerned? Clin Infect Dis. 200540 2805 BorgMAde KrakerMSciclunaEvan de Sande-BruinsmaNTiemersmaEMonenJ Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in invasive isolates from southern and eastern Mediterranean countries J Antimicrob Chemother. 200760 13105 BorgMACooksonBDZarbPSciclunaEA. Antibiotic resistance surveillance and control in the Mediterranean region: report of the ARMed consensus conference J Infect Dev Ctries. 20093 6549 AndrewsJM. BSAC standardized disc susceptibility testing method (version 7) J Antimicrob Chemother. 200862 25678 FiebelkornKRCrawfordSAMcElmeelMLJorgensenJH. Practical disk diffusion method for detection of inducible clindamycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci J Clin Microbiol. 200341 47404 FeyPDSaid-SalimBRuppMEHinrichsSHBoxrudDJDavisCC Comparative molecular analysis of community- or hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 200347 196203 GroomAVWolseyDHNaimiTSSmithKJohnsonSBoxrudD Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a rural American Indian community JAMA. 2001286 12015 KleinESmithDLLaxminarayanR. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in outpatients, United States, 1999–2006 Emerg Infect Dis. 200915 192530 BaddourMMAbuelkheirMMFataniAJ. Trends in antibiotic susceptibility patterns and epidemiology of MRSA isolates from several hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 20065 302 TacconelliE. Antimicrobial use: risk driver of multidrug resistant microorganisms in healthcare settings Curr Opin Infect Dis. 200922 3528 AngelMRBalajiVPrakashJBrahmadathanKNMathewsMS. Prevalence of inducible clindamycin resistance in gram positive organisms in a tertiary care centre Indian J Med Microbiol. 200826 2624 OguzVAYaparNSezakNCavusSAKurutepeSPekselH The rate of inducible clindamycin resistance and susceptibilities to other antimicrobial agents in staphylococci Mikrobiyol Bul. 200943 3744 ShresthaBPokhrelBMMohapatraTM. Phenotypic characterization of nosocomial isolates of Staphylococcus aureus with reference to MRSA J Infect Dev Ctries. 20093 55460 Ahmed MO, Alghazali MH, Amri SG, Abuzweda AR. Detection of inducible clindamycin resistance (MLSBi) among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from Libya. Libyan J Med. 2010; 5: 4636. UdoEEAl-SweihNDharRDimitrovTSMokaddasEMJohnyM A surveillance of antibacterial resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolated in Kuwaiti hospitals Med Princ Pract. 200817 715 CampanileFBongiornoDBorboneSStefaniS. Hospital-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (ha-MRSA) in Italy Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 20098 2224 KampfGWeistKSwidsinskiSKegelMRudenH. Comparison of screening methods to identify methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 199716 3017 PotzNAMushtaqSJohnsonAPHenwoodCJWalkerRAVareyE Reliability of routine disc susceptibility testing by the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) method J Antimicrob Chemother. 200453 72938 AdaletiRNakipogluYKarahanZCTasdemirCKayaF. Comparison of polymerase chain reaction and conventional methods in detecting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus J Infect Dev Ctries. 20082 4650 AhmedMOCleggPDWilliamsNJBaptisteKEBennettM. Antimicrobial resistance in equine faecal Escherichia coli isolates from North West England Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 20107 127 BrownDFEdwardsDIHawkeyPMMorrisonDRidgwayGLTownerKJ Guidelines for the laboratory diagnosis and susceptibility testing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) J Antimicrob Chemother. 200556 100018 AnupurbaSSenMRNathGSharmaBMGulatiAKMohapatraTM. Prevalence of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a tertiary referral hospital in eastern Uttar Pradesh Indian J Med Microbiol. 200321 4951