Rifaximin-resistant Clostridium difficile strains isolated

0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
Apr 25, 2017 - Rifaximin-resistant Clostridium difficile strains isolated from symptomatic patients, Anaerobe (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2017.10.002.
Accepted Manuscript Rifaximin-resistant Clostridium difficile strains isolated from symptomatic patients E. Reigadas, P. Muñoz-Pacheco, L. Alcalá, M. Marín, A. Martin, E. Bouza PII:

S1075-9964(17)30197-X

DOI:

10.1016/j.anaerobe.2017.10.002

Reference:

YANAE 1802

To appear in:

Anaerobe

Received Date: 28 July 2017 Revised Date:

14 September 2017

Accepted Date: 5 October 2017

Please cite this article as: Reigadas E, Muñoz-Pacheco P, Alcalá L, Marín M, Martin A, Bouza E, Rifaximin-resistant Clostridium difficile strains isolated from symptomatic patients, Anaerobe (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2017.10.002. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Rifaximin-Resistant Clostridium difficile Strains Isolated From

2

Symptomatic Patients

3

Reigadas E., PharmD, PhD1, 2, 3

4

Muñoz-Pacheco P., PhD1

5

Alcalá L., PharmD 1, 3, 4

6

Marín M., PharmD, PhD 1, 2, 3, 4

7

Martin A., PhD1, 3

8

Bouza E., MD, PhD1, 2, 3, 4

9

1

SC

RI PT

1

Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital General Universitario

10

Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain

11

2

12

Madrid, Spain

13

3

Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain

14

4

CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES CB06/06/0058), Madrid, Spain

15

Running title: Rifaximin-resistant C. difficile clinical isolates

16

Keywords: C. difficile, antimicrobial susceptibility, rifaximin, rifampicin, ribotype.

17

Corresponding author:

18

Reigadas Ramírez Elena, PharmD, PhD

19

Servicio de Microbiología Clínica y Enfermedades Infecciosas

20

Hospital General Universitario “Gregorio Marañón”

21

C/ Dr. Esquerdo, 46

22

28007 Madrid, Spain

23

Phone: +34- 91- 586 84 53/Fax: +34- 91- 504 49 06

24

E-mail: [email protected]

25

Alternative corresponding author:

26

Bouza Santiago Emilio, MD, PhD

27

Servicio de Microbiología Clínica y Enfermedades Infecciosas

28

Hospital General Universitario “Gregorio Marañón”

29

C/ Dr. Esquerdo, 46

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

Medicine Department, School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM),

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 30

28007 Madrid, Spain

31

Phone: +34- 91- 586 84 53/Fax: +34- 91- 504 49 06

32

E-mail: [email protected]

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

33

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 34 ABSTRACT

36

Background: Rifaximin has been proposed as an alternative treatment for

37

specific cases of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and intestinal

38

decontamination. Rifaximin-resistant C. difficile has occasionally been reported.

39

Antibiotic susceptibility testing relies on anaerobic agar dilution (reference

40

method), which is cumbersome and not routinely used. There is no commercial

41

test for detection of resistance to rifaximin.

42

Objectives: To assess resistance to rifaximin by C. difficile and to evaluate the

43

correlation between the results of the rifampicin E-test and susceptibility to

44

rifaximin.

45

Methods: We compared the in vitro susceptibility of clinical CDI isolates to

46

rifaximin over a 6-month period using the agar dilution method with

47

susceptibility to rifampicin using the E-test. All isolates were characterized using

48

PCR-ribotyping. Clinical data were recorded prospectively.

49

Results: We recovered 276 consecutive C. difficile isolates and found that

50

32.2% of episodes were caused by rifaximin-resistant strains. The MICs for

51

rifaximin ranged from 256 mg/L. Rifaximin and rifampicin MICs were

53

comparable, and all strains classed as resistant by agar dilution were correctly

54

classified as resistant by E-test. The most common ribotypes were 001 (37.2%),

55

078/126 (14.3%), and 014 (12.0%). Ribotype 001 exhibited the highest MICs for

56

rifaximin.

57

Conclusions: Resistance to rifaximin was common; resistance rates were

58

higher in ribotype 001 strains. Susceptibility to rifaximin determined by agar

59

dilution correlated with susceptibility to rifampicin determined using the E-test,

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

35

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 60

including rifaximin-resistant strains. Our results suggest that the rifampicin E-

61

test is a valid method for the prediction of rifaximin-resistant C. difficile.

62 63

RI PT

64 65

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

66

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 67

INTRODUCTION Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the leading cause of hospital-

69

acquired diarrhea in developed countries, yet the current standard treatment for

70

CDI is not always effective. The antibiotics of choice for the treatment of CDI

71

are metronidazole and vancomycin. However, despite the fact that both

72

antibiotics have a very high cure rate, both have high recurrence rates

73

(estimated at 15%-25%)[1, 2]. Recently developed antibiotics such as

74

fidaxomicin appear to be more efficacious than traditional drugs in preventing

75

recurrences [3].

SC

The rifamycin derivative rifaximin has been proposed as an adjunctive

M AN U

76

RI PT

68

treatment to decrease recurrent CDI [4, 5], although resistance to this

78

antimicrobial has been reported. Antibiotic susceptibility testing is based on

79

anaerobic agar dilution, which is considered the reference method for C.

80

difficile; however, this approach is cumbersome and time-consuming and is not

81

widely used in routine testing of clinical isolates. There is no commercially

82

available test for resistance to rifaximin.

Our objectives were to assess resistance to rifaximin and to evaluate the

EP

83

TE D

77

correlation between results with the rifampicin E-test and susceptibility to

85

rifaximin.

86

AC C

84

87

MATERIAL AND METHODS

88

Setting

89

Our institution is a large teaching hospital with 1,550 beds. The clinical

90

microbiology laboratory receives samples from patients hospitalized at our

91

center and from all the outpatient institutions in our catchment area.

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 92 93

Bacterial Isolates We analyzed the in vitro susceptibility of consecutive clinical C. difficile

95

isolates collected from patients with clinically confirmed CDI over a 6-month

96

period.

97

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

RI PT

94

Susceptibility to rifaximin was tested using the agar dilution method

99

according to the procedures of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute

100

(CLSI)[6]. Rifaximin was obtained from Sigma Chemical Company (St Louis,

101

Missouri, USA). Quality control strains included C. difficile ATCC 700057, B.

102

fragilis ATCC 25285, and B. thetaiotamicron ATCC 29741[7]. The range of

103

rifaximin concentrations tested was 0.0009 to 256 g/L. Antimicrobial

104

susceptibility testing for rifampicin was performed by E-test according to the

105

manufacturer’s instructions (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) on sheep blood agar

106

with 1 µg of vitamin K1 and 5 µg of hemin (Oxoid, Basingstoke, United

107

Kingdom). The MICs were recorded for each isolate after 48 hours of incubation

108

following CLSI recommendations [6]. Isolates that exhibited MICs >32 mg/L for

109

rifaximin and rifampicin were classed as resistant.

M AN U

TE D

EP

AC C

110

SC

98

111

Ribotyping

112

All isolates were characterized using PCR-ribotyping[8]. Phylogenetic analysis

113

of ribotyping profiles was conducted using the unweighted pair group method

114

with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) and Dice coefficients (Bionumerics 5.0).

115

Ribotypes were named using an international designation[8].

116 117

Definitions 6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 118

A CDI episode was defined as the presence of a positive result for

119

toxigenic C. difficile testing and the presence of diarrhea (≥3 unformed stools in

120

24 hours) or colonoscopic findings demonstrating pseudomembranous colitis. Severity of CDI was defined according to the guidelines of the Society of

122

Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases

123

Society of America (IDSA)[9].

RI PT

121

An episode was considered a recurrence if after recovery from a previous

125

episode (at least 3 days without diarrhea and clinical improvement), symptoms

126

returned and a stool sample separated from the former by between 15 and 60

127

days was positive. Episodes occurring more than 60 days after the previous one

128

were not considered recurrences but new episodes.

M AN U

SC

124

Death was considered CDI-related when it was not attributable to other

130

unrelated causes occurring within 10 days of the CDI diagnosis and/or due to

131

well-known complications of CDI.

132 133

Clinical data

TE D

129

For clinical assessment only first episodes were assessed. The patients’

135

data collected included age, sex, and hospital department or outpatient clinic at

136

diagnosis of CDI. Data regarding the underlying condition were recorded using

137

the McCabe and Jackson score for prognosis of underlying diseases, and

138

comorbidity factors were assessed according to the Charlson index[10, 11].

139

Clinical data recorded for the CDI episode included antibiotic treatment,

140

severity, recurrence, mortality, and CDI-related mortality.

AC C

EP

134

141 142

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 143 144 145

Ethical Issues This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón.

146 RESULTS

RI PT

147

We recovered 276 consecutive C. difficile isolates from clinical

149

samples that fulfilled our institutional criteria for CDI. MIC ranges, geometric

150

means (GM), and the minimum concentrations inhibiting 50% (MIC50) and 90%

151

(MIC90) of the 276 isolates are shown in Table 1. The MICs for rifaximin against

152

the 276 clinical isolates ranged from 256 mg/L, with a GM of

153

0.256 mg/L, an MIC50 of 0.015 mg/L, and an MIC90 of >256 mg/L. Overall, the

154

MICs for rifaximin were either very low or very high (≤0.125 mg/L, n=185

155

isolates; 64 mg/L, n=1 isolate; and ≥256 mg/L, n=88 isolates).

156

observed also in the case of rifampicin, for which all strains were either ≤0.32

157

mg/L (n=186 mg/L) or >32 mg/L (n=90).

158

Overall, we found that 32.2% of the C. difficile strains were

EP

159

This was

TE D

M AN U

SC

148

rifaximin-resistant, this corresponded to 31.8 % of our initial CDI episodes being

161

caused by C. difficile rifaximin-resistant strains. Median age was 69.6 years,

162

and 52.5% of patients were male. Overall, 78.9% of the patients were

163

hospitalized at the time of the diagnosis of the CDI episode. Most patients were

164

hospitalized in medical wards (70.8%), followed by surgical wards (15.5%),

165

intensive care units (6.1%), oncological wards (4.3%) and other (3.1%). Eighty-

166

five percent of the patients had received antibiotic treatment in the month prior

167

to the CDI episode.

AC C

160

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT We found no differences between CDI episodes caused by

169

rifaximin-resistant strains and rifaximin-susceptible strains regarding severity of

170

CDI (mild to moderate 81.3% vs 85.4, p=0.535; severe 17.2% vs 13.1%,

171

p=0.519; and severe complicated 1.6% vs 1.5%, p=1.000). Similarly, no

172

differences were found for recurrence rate (17.2% vs 14.6% p=0.677), overall

173

mortality (9.4% vs 8.0%, p=0.788), or related mortality (3.1% vs 2.2% p=0.654).

RI PT

168

174

Rifaximin and rifampicin MICs for C. difficile isolates were

176

comparable. With respect to the breakpoint classification for resistance, there

177

was agreement in 99.6% of the isolates: only 1 isolate was classified as

178

rifampicin-resistant by the E-test and rifaximin-susceptible by agar dilution. All

179

strains shown to be resistant by agar dilution were correctly classified as

180

resistant by E-test.

M AN U

SC

175

A total of 258 strains were available for PCR-ribotyping. The 3

182

most common ribotypes were 001 (37.2%), 078/126 (14.3%), and 014 (12.0%).

183

The distribution of the ribotypes is shown in Figure 1. The analysis of

184

antimicrobial susceptibility according to the most frequently encountered

185

ribotypes is shown in Table 2. Ribotype 001 exhibited the highest MICs for

186

rifaximin (MIC50/90, >256/>256; GM, 59.521 mg/L) and the highest resistance

187

rate for rifaximin (86.3%; n=95), followed by 046 (20%; n=4) and 078/126

188

(5.4%; n= 37).

AC C

EP

TE D

181

189 190 191

DISCUSSION

9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 192

A high proportion of the CDI episodes at our institution were caused by

193

rifaximin-resistant strains. The results of the rifampicin E-test correlated closely

194

with those of the rifaximin anaerobic agar dilution method, and the E-test

195

correctly classified all rifaximin-resistant strains. For the past 30 years, metronidazole and vancomycin have been the

RI PT

196

mainstay of treatment of CDI. Newer antibiotics such as fidaxomicin and

198

recently developed approaches such as monoclonal antibodies aim to

199

overcome the main disadvantage of conventional treatments, namely, their high

200

recurrence rate [9, 12], although these will probably prove more expensive.

201

Rifaximin has been proposed as an adjunctive treatment to decrease

M AN U

SC

197

recurrences [4, 5].Most in vitro studies on rifaximin showed good antibacterial

203

activity against C. difficile and rare development of resistant clones[13-15].

204

Consistent with previous findings, we observed that the MICs for the isolates

205

were either very high or very low [13, 14, 16]. In addition, we observed a very

206

high rate of resistance to rifaximin (32.2%, 89 isolates). Similarly high rates

207

have only been reported in a study from China (29%) [17], although the authors

208

analyzed fewer strains. Other study had previously documented high resistance

209

rates to other rifamycin, rifampicin in an epidemic clone at University of

210

Pittsburgh Medical Center–Presbyterian Hospital[18].

EP

AC C

211

TE D

202

Whether the rifampicin E-test can reliably predict susceptibility to

212

rifaximin remains a controversial issue [15, 16] [19] [20]. The total number of

213

resistant isolates in the studies assessing this issue was quite low. In our study,

214

we found that a high number of strains were resistant and that all of the

215

rifaximin-resistant isolates were correctly classified using the rifampicin E-test.

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 216

We found no differences between episodes caused by rifaximin-resistant strains and rifaximin-susceptible strains regarding severity of CDI, recurrence,

218

overall mortality, or CDI-related mortality. These observations suggest that

219

resistance to rifaximin is not a marker for hypervirulent strains. Since none of

220

the episodes were treated with rifaximin, we were not able to determine the

221

clinical implications of receiving rifaximin in patients infected with resistant

222

strains.

The most common ribotype in the present study was 001, which has

SC

223

RI PT

217

been reported to have one of the highest percentages of resistance to 3 or more

225

classes of antibiotics[21]. We observed that 86.3% of ribotype 001 isolates were

226

rifaximin-resistant. In the few studies that have further assessed this

227

observation, resistant strains corresponded mostly to ribotypes 017 and 027

228

[16, 17, 22].

Our findings are limited by the fact that we were not able to establish a

TE D

229

M AN U

224

correlation between the antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods in ribotype

231

027 strains owing to the limited number of 027 strains in our center at the time

232

of the study. However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the only study to

233

assess susceptibility to rifaximin and its correlation with the E-test and to report

234

such a high number of rifaximin-resistant strains from patients with clinically

235

confirmed CDI. Moreover, this is the only study to have established a correlation

236

between these results and the clinical characteristics of the patients.

237

AC C

EP

230

In conclusion, resistance to rifaximin was common: resistance rates were

238

higher in ribotype 001 strains at our hospital. Susceptibility to rifaximin

239

determined using the agar dilution method correlated significantly with

240

susceptibility to rifampicin detected using the E-test, including rifaximin resistant

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT strains. Our results suggest that the rifampicin E-test could be a valid method

242

for the prediction of rifaximin-resistant C. difficile. Clinicians should take local

243

epidemiology into account before considering treating a CDI case with rifaximin.

244

In this sense, the rifampicin E-test is a simple tool that would enable any

245

laboratory to carry out this type of surveillance study.

246 247

RI PT

241

Acknowledgments

249 250 251

We thank Thomas O’Boyle for his help in the preparation of the

M AN U

252

SC

248

manuscript.

Some of the results of this study were previously presented in poster

254

form at the “27th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious

255

Diseases” (22nd-25th April, 2017; Vienna, Austria).

256

TE D

253

Transparency declarations/Potential conflicts of interest. The authors

258

declare no conflicts of interest.

259

EP

257

Role of funding source

261

This study was financed by Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias (FIS),

262

Research Project number PI13/00687 and PI16/00490, and by the European

263

Regional Development Fund (FEDER) “A way of making Europe”.

AC C

260

264 265 266

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

M AN U

SC

RI PT

[1] J.G. Bartlett. Clostridium difficile: progress and challenges. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1213 (2010) 62-9. [2] A.N. Ananthakrishnan. Clostridium difficile infection: epidemiology, risk factors and management. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 8 (2011) 17-26. [3] S.M. McGlone, R.R. Bailey, S.M. Zimmer, M.J. Popovich, Y. Tian, P. Ufberg, et al. The economic burden of Clostridium difficile. Clin Microbiol Infect 18 (2012) 282-9. [4] K.W. Garey, S.S. Ghantoji, D.N. Shah, M. Habib, V. Arora, Z.D. Jiang, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study to assess the ability of rifaximin to prevent recurrent diarrhoea in patients with Clostridium difficile infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 66 (2011) 2850-5. [5] S. Johnson, C. Schriever, M. Galang, C.P. Kelly, D.N. Gerding. Interruption of recurrent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea episodes by serial therapy with vancomycin and rifaximin. Clin Infect Dis 44 (2007) 846-8. [6] Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Anaerobic Bacteria; Approved Standard M11-A8 7th ed. Wayne, PA, USA, 2012

TE D

[7] C.a.L.S. Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: 24th informational supplement M100-S24. . Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA; 2014. [8] S.L. Stubbs, J.S. Brazier, G.L. O'Neill, B.I. Duerden. PCR targeted to the 16S-23S rRNA gene intergenic spacer region of Clostridium difficile and construction of a library consisting of 116 different PCR ribotypes. J Clin Microbiol 37 (1999) 461-3. [9] S.H. Cohen, D.N. Gerding, S. Johnson, C.P. Kelly, V.G. Loo, L.C. McDonald, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the society for healthcare epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the infectious diseases society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 31 (2010) 431-55. [10] M.E. Charlson, P. Pompei, K.L. Ales, C.R. MacKenzie. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40 (1987) 373-83. [11] M. WR, J. GG. Gram-negative bacteremia: I. Etiology and ecology. . Arch Intern Med 110 (1962) 847–55. [12] S.B. Debast, M.P. Bauer, E.J. Kuijper. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the treatment guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 20 Suppl 2 (2014) 1-26. [13] A. Marchese, A. Salerno, A. Pesce, E.A. Debbia, G.C. Schito. In vitro activity of rifaximin, metronidazole and vancomycin against Clostridium difficile and the rate of selection of spontaneously resistant mutants against representative anaerobic and aerobic bacteria, including ammonia-producing species. Chemotherapy 46 (2000) 253-66. [14] D.W. Hecht, M.A. Galang, S.P. Sambol, J.R. Osmolski, S. Johnson, D.N. Gerding. In vitro activities of 15 antimicrobial agents against 110 toxigenic clostridium difficile clinical isolates collected from 1983 to 2004. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51 (2007) 2716-9.

EP

268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315

References

AC C

267

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RI PT

SC

M AN U

TE D EP

344

[15] Z.D. Jiang, H.L. DuPont, M. La Rocco, K.W. Garey. In vitro susceptibility of Clostridium difficile to rifaximin and rifampin in 359 consecutive isolates at a university hospital in Houston, Texas. J Clin Pathol 63 (2010) 355-8. [16] J.R. O'Connor, M.A. Galang, S.P. Sambol, D.W. Hecht, G. Vedantam, D.N. Gerding, et al. Rifampin and rifaximin resistance in clinical isolates of Clostridium difficile. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52 (2008) 2813-7. [17] H. Huang, A. Weintraub, H. Fang, S. Wu, Y. Zhang, C.E. Nord. Antimicrobial susceptibility and heteroresistance in Chinese Clostridium difficile strains. Anaerobe 16 (2010) 633-5. [18] S.R. Curry, J.W. Marsh, K.A. Shutt, C.A. Muto, M.M. O'Leary, M.I. Saul, et al. High frequency of rifampin resistance identified in an epidemic Clostridium difficile clone from a large teaching hospital. Clin Infect Dis 48 (2009) 425-9. [19] M.A. Miller, R. Blanchette, P. Spigaglia, F. Barbanti, P. Mastrantonio. Divergent rifamycin susceptibilities of Clostridium difficile strains in Canada and Italy and predictive accuracy of rifampin Etest for rifamycin resistance. J Clin Microbiol 49 (2011) 4319-21. [20] S. Huhulescu, U. Sagel, A. Fiedler, V. Pecavar, M. Blaschitz, G. Wewalka, et al. Rifaximin disc diffusion test for in vitro susceptibility testing of Clostridium difficile. J Med Microbiol 60 (2011) 1206-12. [21] P. Spigaglia, F. Barbanti, P. Mastrantonio. Multidrug resistance in European Clostridium difficile clinical isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 66 (2011) 2227-34. [22] J.W. Cheng, M. Xiao, T. Kudinha, F. Kong, Z.P. Xu, L.Y. Sun, et al. Molecular Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Clostridium difficile Isolates from a University Teaching Hospital in China. Front Microbiol 7 (2016) 1621.

AC C

316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 345 346

Table 1. In vitro activity of the antimicrobials tested against 276 clinical

347

isolates of Clostridium difficile. MIC Range

MIC50/90

Geometric Mean

Agent

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

(mg/L)

Rifaximin

256

0.015/>256

0.256

Rifampicin

32

0.020/>32

0.230

349

SC

348

RI PT

Antimicrobial

MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration

M AN U

350

AC C

EP

TE D

351

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 352 Table 2. In vitro activity of the antimicrobials tested against clinical

354

isolates of Clostridium difficile according to the most frequent ribotypes

355

encountered in our study.

MIC Range (mg/L) Rifampicin 32 Rifaximin 0.009->256 MIC50/90 (mg/L) Rifampicin >32/>32 Rifaximin >256/>256 Geometric Mean (mg/L) Rifampicin 12.601 Rifaximin 59.521 356

MIC, minimal inhibitory concentration

Ribotype 014/020 (n=31)

32 0.004->256