Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research
  Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login  
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 5784       

   Table of Contents      
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 141  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 492-493

Authors' response

Department of Neuromicrobiology, National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences, Bengaluru 560 029, Karnataka, India

Date of Web Publication24-Jun-2015

Correspondence Address:
R Ravikumar
Department of Neuromicrobiology, National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences, Bengaluru 560 029, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Shenoy K A, Jyoti E K, Ravikumar R. Authors' response. Indian J Med Res 2015;141:492-3

How to cite this URL:
Shenoy K A, Jyoti E K, Ravikumar R. Authors' response. Indian J Med Res [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 Jun 4];141:492-3. Available from:


  1. We appreciate the critical comments regarding our study conducted in 2011-2012 [1] . Our institute is a tertiary neuro care center and has a strict Hospital Infection Surveillance System which constantly monitors the MDR infections in the wards and Intensive Care Units. Also the percentages of drug-resistant isolates reported in our six-months study cannot be extrapolated to studies conducted in different hospitals receiving different types of specimen or studies conducted on particular infection sites. Studies quoted by the authors [2],[3] provide data from multicenter studies and give an excellent overview of drug resistance scenario in the country. However, these studies were conducted in 2003 [3] and 2007 [2] and might not be relevant to the percentages of our study (6 months data from one hospital in 2011-2012) [1] .
  2. As part of routine laboratory screening of patients samples we performed the antibiotic sensitivity testing of the positive cultures as per CLSI guidelines [4] . We considered those isolates to be MDR, that were resistant to the first and second line antibiotics - depending on the samples. As mentioned in our study [1] , only those isolates resistant to the following panel of antibiotics by disk diffusion method were considered for further analysis as NDM-1 producers are known to have additional mechanisms that make them resistant to several classes of antibiotics:
  3. In micrograms, ampicillin (10 ) , amikacin (30), gentamicin (10), ciprofloxacin (5), ofloxacin (5), cefotaxime (30), ceftriaxone (30), ceftazidime (30), imipenem (10), cefoperazone-sulbactam (75/10), piperacillin-tazobactam (100/19), aztreonam (30), cefepime (30), tobramycin (19). A similar panel of antibiotics has been tested in the SMART study conducted from 2002-2011 [5] .This is a tertiary care centre specializing in the central nervous system diseases and not having a considerable number of patients with other illnesses. Also, our hospital has a strict antibiotic policy and hospital infection surveillance system in place; which could be the main reason of our reduced rate of drug resistant bacteria as a whole.
  4. The carbapenem antibiotic that was screened using disk diffusion method was imipenem. All 74 isolates were resistant to imipenem by Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method. The other carbapenem antibiotics-meropenem and ertapenem were checked through the Vitek 2 Compact 60 system. For certain isolates Vitek had suppressed certain carbapenems from analysis.
  5. The MIC values of meropenem (ME), ertapenem (ERT) and imipenem (IP m0 ) for the six PCR-positive, variable carbapenem resistant isolates are as follows:

  6. The test that was performed for our study was the combined disk test or-imipenem - EDTA combined disk synergy test (CDST) [6] . We regret the possible confusion caused due to the wrong naming.
  7. Table II has been referred to a particular section of the paper where all the calculations of percentages have been done according to the number of clinical specimens collected. The percentage of blandm-1 carrying A. baumannii (n = 4; 5.7%) was calculated among the number of samples studied (n = 70). It would be 20 per cent when calculated among the total MDR isolates of the same bacterial species. The same is applicable to E. coli also. In our study, 14.7 per cent of NDM-1 positive isolates were E. coli (5 PCR +ve E. coli /34 total PCR +ve isolates). Here the calculation was done based on the number of isolates. There were instances when more than one isolate were retrieved from one tracheal aspirate sample and hence > 100 per cent value for the percentage of total number of isolates.
  8. For example, 45 isolates from 39 tracheal aspirate samples would give a percentage of 115.38 per cent. The Table was made in consultation with a biostatistician of the study centre.
  9. The susceptibility to tigecycline was assessed based on Vitek system report. The two isolates were Providencia rettgeri (MIC=2 µg/ml) and Klebsiella pneumoniae ssp pneumoniae (MIC ≥ 8 µg/ml), both isolated from tracheal samples. In a recently published article [7 ] it has been stated that according to EUCAST breakpoints ( P. rettgeri can be considered resistant to tigecycline with MIC = 2 mg/l.

   References Top

Shenoy KA, Jyothi EK, Ravikumar R. Phenotypic identification and molecular detection of bla ndm-1 gene in multidrug resistant Gram-negative bacilli in a tertiary care centre.Indian J Med Res 2014; 139 : 625-31.  Back to cited text no. 1
Chaudhuri BN, Rodrigues C, Balaji V, Iyer R, Sekar U, Wattal C, et al. Incidence of ESBL producers amongst Gram-negative bacilli isolated from intra-abdominal infections across India (based on SMART study, 2007 data). J Assoc Physicians India 2011; 59 : 287-92.  Back to cited text no. 2
Jain A, Roy I, Gupta MK, Kumar M, Agarwal SK.Prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria in septicaemic neonates in a tertiary care hospital. J Med Microbiol 2003; 52 : 421-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 21 [st] information supplement. Wayne, PA: CLSE; 2011.  Back to cited text no. 4
Morrissey I, Hackel M, Badal R, Bouchillon S, Hawser S, Biedenbach D. A review of ten years of the Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART) from 2002 to 2011. Pharmaceuticals 2013; 6 : 1335-46.   Back to cited text no. 5
Pandya NP, Prajapati SB, Mehta SJ, Kikani KM, Joshi PJ. Evaluation of various methods for detection of metallo-â-lactamase (MBL) production in Gram negative bacilli. Int J Biol Med Res 2011; 2 : 775-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
Carvalho-Assef AP, Pereira PS, Albano RM, Berião GC, Chagas TP, Timm LN, et al. Isolation of NDM-producing Providencia rettgeri in Brazil. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; 68 : 2956-7.  Back to cited text no. 7


    Similar in PUBMED
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded100    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal