Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to the macrolides, azalides, lincosamines, and ketolides

INTRODUCTION

Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), the most common cause of bacterial respiratory tract infections in children and adults, was susceptible to virtually all antibiotics used in treating such infections until outbreaks of infection due to antibiotic-resistant pneumococci were recognized in South Africa in the late 1970s [1,2]. Although the responsible organisms were called penicillin-resistant pneumococci (PRP), they had acquired genetic material that encoded resistance both to penicillin and to other commonly used antibiotics.

In the ensuing decades, resistance of pneumococci to several clinically relevant classes of antibiotics has evolved from an ominous medical curiosity to a worldwide health problem.

Macrolides, azalides, lincosamines, and ketolides are related drugs that inhibit protein synthesis at the same site in the bacterial ribosome and are generally active against the same microorganisms. Macrolides, azalides, and ketolides are (or, at least, used to be) generally active against S. pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Legionella species, Chlamydia pneumoniae, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Clindamycin, the only lincosamine currently in use, is effective against most pneumococci, but is not active against such pathogens as H. influenzae and M. catarrhalis.

The mechanisms of action of, and resistance to macrolides, lincosamines, and ketolides, as well as clinical data on the outcome of therapy with these drugs for otitis, sinusitis, acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, pneumonia, and meningitis will be reviewed here. Resistance to the other classes of drugs is discussed separately. (See "Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to beta-lactam antibiotics" and "Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to the fluoroquinolones, doxycycline, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole".)

MACROLIDES AND AZALIDES

The first of the macrolides, erythromycin, is poorly tolerated. After oral administration, erythromycin causes gastrointestinal distress and is not reliably absorbed; it also frequently causes thrombophlebitis after intravenous administration. As a result, erythromycin has been largely replaced by clarithromycin, a newer macrolide, and azithromycin, an azalide. It is important to note that pneumococci that are resistant to erythromycin are also resistant to the newer macrolides and the azalides.

                   

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article you must have access through your hospital or your group practice, log in to your personal subscription, or purchase a personal subscription. For more information, click below.
Literature review current through: Apr 2013. | This topic last updated: Jan 3, 2013.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2013 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Visalli MA, Jacobs MR, Appelbaum PC. Susceptibility of twenty penicillin-susceptible and -resistant pneumococci to levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, erythromycin, azithromycin, and clarithromycin by MIC and time-kill. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1997; 28:131.
  2. Berry V, Thorburn CE, Knott SJ, Woodnutt G. Bacteriological efficacies of three macrolides compared with those of amoxicillin-clavulanate against Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42:3193.
  3. Corso A, Severina EP, Petruk VF, et al. Molecular characterization of penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates causing respiratory disease in the United States. Microb Drug Resist 1998; 4:325.
  4. Shortridge VD, Doern GV, Brueggemann AB, et al. 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.
  5. Stephens DS, Zughaier SM, Whitney CG, et al. Incidence of macrolide resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae after introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine: population-based assessment. Lancet 2005; 365:855.
  6. 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.
  7. Musher DM, Dowell ME, Shortridge VD, et al. Emergence of macrolide resistance during treatment of pneumococcal pneumonia. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:630.
  8. Thornsberry C, Sahm DF, Kelly LJ, et al. Regional trends in antimicrobial resistance among clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis in the United States: results from the TRUST Surveillance Program, 1999-2000. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34 Suppl 1:S4.
  9. Farrell DJ, Jenkins SG, Brown SD, et al. Emergence and spread of Streptococcus pneumoniae with erm(B) and mef(A) resistance. Emerg Infect Dis 2005; 11:851.
  10. Doern GV, Richter SS, Miller A, et al. Antimicrobial resistance among Streptococcus pneumoniae in the United States: have we begun to turn the corner on resistance to certain antimicrobial classes? Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:139.
  11. Jenkins SG, Farrell DJ. Increase in pneumococcus macrolide resistance, United States. Emerg Infect Dis 2009; 15:1260.
  12. Richter SS, Heilmann KP, Dohrn CL, et al. Changing epidemiology of antimicrobial-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae in the United States, 2004-2005. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:e23.
  13. Pérez-Trallero E, Fernández-Mazarrasa C, García-Rey C, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of 1,684 Streptococcus pneumoniae and 2,039 Streptococcus pyogenes isolates and their ecological relationships: results of a 1-year (1998-1999) multicenter surveillance study in Spain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45:3334.
  14. Hoban DJ, Doern GV, Fluit AC, et al. Worldwide prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis in the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1997-1999. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32 Suppl 2:S81.
  15. Song JH, Jung SI, Ko KS, et al. High prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among clinical Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates in Asia (an ANSORP study). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48:2101.
  16. Hotomi M, Billal DS, Shimada J, et al. Increase of macrolide-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae-expressing mefE or ermB gene in the nasopharynx among children with otitis media. Laryngoscope 2005; 115:317.
  17. Vanderkooi OG, Low DE, Green K, et al. Predicting antimicrobial resistance in invasive pneumococcal infections. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 40:1288.
  18. Dagan R, Johnson CE, McLinn S, et al. Bacteriologic and clinical efficacy of amoxicillin/clavulanate vs. azithromycin in acute otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19:95.
  19. Dagan R, Leibovitz E, Fliss DM, et al. Bacteriologic efficacies of oral azithromycin and oral cefaclor in treatment of acute otitis media in infants and young children. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44:43.
  20. Dagan R, Leibovitz E, Leiberman A, Yagupsky P. Clinical significance of antibiotic resistance in acute otitis media and implication of antibiotic treatment on carriage and spread of resistant organisms. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19:S57.
  21. Kogan R, Martínez MA, Rubilar L, et al. Comparative randomized trial of azithromycin versus erythromycin and amoxicillin for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in children. Pediatr Pulmonol 2003; 35:91.
  22. Hayle R, Lingaas E, Høivik HO, Odegård T. Efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus phenoxymethylpenicillin in the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1996; 15:849.
  23. Murray JJ, Solomon E, McCluskey D, et al. Phase III, randomized, double-blind study of clarithromycin extended-release and immediate-release formulations in the treatment of adult patients with acute maxillary sinusitis. Clin Ther 2000; 22:1421.
  24. Tambic Andrasevic A, Tambic T, Kalenic S, et al. Surveillance for antimicrobial resistance in Croatia. Emerg Infect Dis 2002; 8:14.
  25. Klapan I, Culig J, Oresković K, et al. Azithromycin versus amoxicillin/clavulanate in the treatment of acute sinusitis. Am J Otolaryngol 1999; 20:7.
  26. Plouffe J, Schwartz DB, Kolokathis A, et al. Clinical efficacy of intravenous followed by oral azithromycin monotherapy in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. The Azithromycin Intravenous Clinical Trials Group. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44:1796.
  27. Bohte R, van't Wout JW, Lobatto S, et al. Efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus benzylpenicillin or erythromycin in community-acquired pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 14:182.
  28. Paladino JA, Gudgel LD, Forrest A, Niederman MS. Cost-effectiveness of IV-to-oral switch therapy: azithromycin vs cefuroxime with or without erythromycin for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Chest 2002; 122:1271.
  29. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44 Suppl 2:S27.
  30. Daneman N, Low DE, McGeer A, et al. At the threshold: defining clinically meaningful resistance thresholds for antibiotic choice in community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 46:1131.
  31. Cherubin CE, Magazine D, Hargrove C, et al. A comparative study of the treatment of presumed pneumococcal pneumonia: parenteral penicillin and clindamycin with continuation on oral therapy. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 1975; 17:88.
  32. Clay KD, Hanson JS, Pope SD, et al. Brief communication: severe hepatotoxicity of telithromycin: three case reports and literature review. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144:415.
  33. Pankuch GA, Visalli MA, Jacobs MR, Appelbaum PC. Susceptibilities of penicillin- and erythromycin-susceptible and -resistant pneumococci to HMR 3647 (RU 66647), a new ketolide, compared with susceptibilities to 17 other agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42:624.
  34. Xiong L, Shah S, Mauvais P, Mankin AS. A ketolide resistance mutation in domain II of 23S rRNA reveals the proximity of hairpin 35 to the peptidyl transferase centre. Mol Microbiol 1999; 31:633.
  35. Nagai K, Appelbaum PC, Davies TA, et al. Susceptibilities to telithromycin and six other agents and prevalence of macrolide resistance due to L4 ribosomal protein mutation among 992 Pneumococci from 10 central and Eastern European countries. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46:371.
  36. Edelstein PH, Edelstein MA. In vitro activity of the ketolide HMR 3647 (RU 6647) for Legionella spp., its pharmacokinetics in guinea pigs, and use of the drug to treat guinea pigs with Legionella pneumophila pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43:90.
  37. Miyashita N, Fukano H, Niki Y, Matsushima T. In vitro activity of telithromycin, a new ketolide, against Chlamydia pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 48:403.
  38. Yamaguchi T, Hirakata Y, Izumikawa K, et al. In vitro activity of telithromycin (HMR3647), a new ketolide, against clinical isolates of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in Japan. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44:1381.
  39. Karchmer AW. Increased antibiotic resistance in respiratory tract pathogens: PROTEKT US--an update. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39 Suppl 3:S142.
  40. Telithromycin FDA efficacy review NDA 21-144 available at the FDA website www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3919S1_05_FDA-Alexander.ppt (Accessed on March 08, 2005).
  41. Roos K, Brunswig-Pitschner C, Kostrica R, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily therapy with telithromycin for 5 or 10 days for the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis. Chemotherapy 2002; 48:100.
  42. Buchanan P, Roos K, Tellier G, et al. Bacteriological efficacy of 5-day therapy with telithromycin in acute maxillary sinusitis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2005; 25:237.
  43. Ferguson BJ, Guzzetta RV, Spector SL, Hadley JA. Efficacy and safety of oral telithromycin once daily for 5 days versus moxifloxacin once daily for 10 days in the treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 131:207.
  44. Aubier M, Aldons PM, Leak A, et al. Telithromycin is as effective as amoxicillin/clavulanate in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Respir Med 2002; 96:862.
  45. Zervos MJ, Heyder AM, Leroy B. Oral telithromycin 800 mg once daily for 5 days versus cefuroxime axetil 500 mg twice daily for 10 days in adults with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. J Int Med Res 2003; 31:157.
  46. Hagberg L, Torres A, van Rensburg D, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily telithromycin compared with high-dose amoxicillin for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Infection 2002; 30:378.
  47. Pullman J, Champlin J, Vrooman PS Jr. Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily oral therapy with telithromycin compared with trovafloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Int J Clin Pract 2003; 57:377.
  48. Tellier G, Niederman MS, Nusrat R, et al. Clinical and bacteriological efficacy and safety of 5 and 7 day regimens of telithromycin once daily compared with a 10 day regimen of clarithromycin twice daily in patients with mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54:515.
  49. Niederman MS, Chang JR, Stewart J, et al. Hospitalization rates among patients with community-acquired pneumonia treated with telithromycin vs clarithromycin: results from two randomized, double-blind, clinical trials. Curr Med Res Opin 2004; 20:969.
  50. Musher DM, Alexandraki I, Graviss EA, et al. Bacteremic and nonbacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia. A prospective study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2000; 79:210.
  51. Baddour LM, Yu VL, Klugman KP, et al. Combination antibiotic therapy lowers mortality among severely ill patients with pneumococcal bacteremia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004; 170:440.