This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of glycopeptide resistance in enterococci and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) and to determine the susceptibilities of the identified glycopeptide-resistant isolates to dalbavancin. METHODS: Twenty-two medical laboratories participated in the study conducted in 2016/17 by the Paul-Ehrlich-Society for Chemotherapy. Each laboratory was asked to collect 30 Enterococcus spp. (limited to Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium) and 30 CoNS isolates consecutively from hospitalised patients with a proven or suspected infection. RESULTS: A total of 1285 isolates were collected, comprising 364 E. faecalis, 291 E. faecium and 630 CoNS. No E. faecalis isolates (0%) but 76 E. faecium isolates (26.1%) were vancomycin-resistant, of which 21 showed the VanA type and 55 the VanB type. The proportion of vancomycin-resistant strains among E. faecium isolates from patients in intensive care units (21.6%) was significantly lower than that from patients on regular wards (30.5%). Among the CoNS, 67 isolates (10.6%) were teicoplanin-resistant but none were vancomycin-resistant, with resistance only detected in Staphylococcus epidermidis (12.2%), Staphylococcus haemolyticus (17.9%) and Staphylococcus hominis (13.2%). Dalbavancin at ≤0.25 mg/L inhibited all VanB-type enterococci and 95.5% of teicoplanin-resistant CoNS. CONCLUSION: The level of glycopeptide resistance in E. faecalis remains very low in Germany but achieved 26% in E. faecium and was >10% in CoNS. Dalbavancin appears to be a feasible option for treating infections caused by VanB-type vancomycin-resistant E. faecium and teicoplanin-resistant CoNS.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kresken et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: