Evaluation of in vitro activities of tigecycline and various antibiotics against Brucella spp.

• Autorzy: Ozhak-Baysan B , Ongut G. , Ogunc D. , Gunseren F. , Sepin-Ozen N. , Ozturk F. , Aktepe O.C. , Gultekin M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Brucellosis is a zoonosis with a worldwide distribution and remains a significant public health problem mainly in the developing world. In this study we evaluated the in vitro activities and synergistic effects of antibiotic combinations against blood culture isolates of Brucella spp. In vitro susceptibilities of 76 blood culture isolates of Brucella melitensis and one blood culture isolate of Brucella abortus to doxycycline, streptomycin, gentamicin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, moxifloxacin, rifampin, ciprofloxacin, and tigecycline were examined by Etest method. For 37 patients with Brucella spp. isolates (36 B. melitensis, 1 B. abortus), antibiotic combinations used for treatment were identified with those tested in vitro for synergy using Etest method. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and tigecycline were the most active of the compounds tested with MIC₉₀ value of 0.094 mg/1. Among antibiotic combinations only streptomycin-rifampin combination was synergistic for one Brucella spp. isolate. The other antibiotic combinations revealed antagonistic or indifferent activity. Complete clinical response was achieved in all patients. Further studies are required to determine the correlation between the antimicrobial susceptibility and synergy test results with the clinical course of patients. Brucellosis can be adequately treated with existing regimens in our region.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

brucellosis; synergy testing; susceptibility; tigecycline; antibiotic; Brucella; zoonosis; public health; blood culture isolate; human disease

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Microbiology
• Rocznik: 2010
• Tom: 59
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.55-60,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Ozhak-Baysan B

• Akdeniz University, Faculty of Medicine, Antalya, Turkey

autor

Ongut G.

autor

Ogunc D.

autor

Gunseren F.

autor

Sepin-Ozen N.

autor

Ozturk F.

autor

Aktepe O.C.

autor

Gultekin M.

Bibliografia

• Akova M., D. Gur, D.M. Livermorc, T. Kocagoz and H.E. Akalýn. 1999. In vitro activities of antibiotics alone and in combination against Brucella melitensis at neutral and acidic pHs. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 43: 1298-1300.
• Al-Orainey I.O., E.N.S. Saeed, A.M.M. Kambal and M.E. Eltigani. 1991. Sensitivity of Brucella melitensis to chemothera-peutic agents. Saudi. Med. J. 12; 119-120.
• Ariza J., J. Bosch, F. Gudiol, J. Liñares, P.F. Viladrich and R. Martin. 1986. Relevance of in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Brucella melitensis to relapse rate in human brucellosis. Anti-microb. Agents. Chemother. 30: 958-960.
• Baykam N., H. Esener, O. Ergonul, S. Eren, A.K. Celikbas and B. Dokuzoguz. 2004. In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Brucella species. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 23: 405-407.
• Bodur H., N. Balaban, S. Aksaray, V. Yetener, E. Akýncý, A. Coplan and A. Erbay. 2003. Biotypes and antimicrobial susceptibilities of Brucella isolates. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 35: 337-338.
• Bosch J., J. Linares, M.J. Lopez de Goicoechea, J. Ariza, M.C. Cisnal and R. Martin. 1986. In vitro activity of ciprofloxacin, ceftriaxone and five other antimicrobial agents against 95 strains of Brucella melitensis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 17: 459-461.
• Bossi P., A. Tegnell, A. Baka, F. Van Loock, J. Hendriks, A. Werner, H. Maidhof and G. Gouvras. 2004. Bichat guidelines for the clinical management of brucellosis and bioterrorism-related brucellosis. Euro. Surveill. 9: 12.
• Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2006. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Testing, Document M100-S16. Wayne, PA.
• Dizbay M., S. Kilic, K. Hizel and D. Arman. 2007. Tigecycline: its potential for treatment of brucellosis. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 39: 432-434.
• Falagas M.E. and I.A. Bliziotis. 2006. Quinolones for treatment of human brucellosis: review of the evidence from microbiological and clinical studies. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 50: 22-33.
• Gur D., S. Kocagoz, M. Akova and S. Unal. 1999. Comparison of Etest to microdilution for determining in vitro activities of antibiotics against Brucella melitensis. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 43:2337-2340.
• Khan, M.Y., M. Dizon and F.W. Kiel. 1989. Comparative in vitro activities of ofloxacin, difloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and other selected antimicrobial agents against Brucella melitensis. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 33: 1409-1410.
• Lopez-Merino A., A. Contreras-Rodriguez, R. Migranas-Ortiz, R. Orrantia-Gradin, G.M. Hernandez-Oliva, A.T. Gutierrez-Rubio and O. Cardenosa. 2004. Susceptibility of Mexican Brucella isolates to moxifloxacin, ciprofloxacin and other antimicrobials used in the treatment of human brucellosis. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 36: 636-638.
• Nathwani D. 2005. Tigecycline: clinical evidence and formulary positioning. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 25: 185-192.
• Orhan G., A. Baykam, Y. Zer and I. Balcý. 2005. Synergy tests by Etest and checkerboard methods of antimicrobial combinations against Brucella melitensis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43: 140-143.
• Pappas G., J. Solera, N. Akritidis and E. Tsianos. 2005. New approaches to the antibiotic treatment of brucellosis. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 26: 101-105.
• Pappas G., L. Christou, N. Akritidis and E.V. Tsianos. 2006a. Quinolones for brucellosis: treating old diseases with new drugs. Clin. Microbiol. Infect,. 12: 823-825.
• Pappas G., P. Papadimitriou, L. Christou and N. Akritidis. 2006b. Future trends in human brucellosis treatment. Expert. Opin. Investig. Drugs. 15: 1-7.
• Qadri, S.M. and Y. Ueno. 1993. Susceptibility of Brucella melitensis to the new fluoroquinolone PD 131628: comparison with other drugs. Chemother. 39: 128-131.
• Rubinstein E., R. Lang, B. Shasha, B. Hagar, L. Diamanstein, G. Joseph, M. Anderson and K. Harrison. 1991. In vitro susceptibility of Brucella melitensis to antibiotics. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 35: 1925-1927.
• Trujillano-Martin L, E. García-Sánchez, I.M. Martinez, M.J. Fresnadillo, J.E. García-Sánchez and J.A. García-Rodríguez. 1999. In vitro activities of six new fluoroquinolones against Brucella melitensis. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 43: 194-195.
• Turan H., H. Arslan, O.K. Azap, K. Serefhanodlu and H. Uncu. 2007. In vitro antibacterial activity of tigecycline in comparison with doxycycline, ciprofloxacin and rifampicin against Brucella spp. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 30: 186-187.
• Turkmani A., A. Ioannidis, A. Christidou, A. Psaroulaki, F. Loukaides and Y. Tselentis. 2006. In vitro susceptibilities of Brucella melitensis isolates to eleven antibiotics. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 5: 24.
• White R.L., D.S. Burgess, M. Manduru, J.A. Bosso. 1996. Comparison of three different in vitro methods of detecting synergy: time-kill, checkerboard, and Etest. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 40: 1914-1918.
• World Health Organization. Sixth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Brucellosis. WHO Technical Report Series Rep. 740. Geneva, Switzerland 1986.
• Yagupsky, P. and E.J. Baron. 2005. Laboratory exposures to Brucellae and implications for bioterrorism. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 11: 1180-185.
• Yamazhan T., S. Aydemir, A. Tunger, D. Serter and D. Gokengin. 2005. In vitro activities of various antimicrobials against Brucella melitensis strains in the Aegean region in Turkey. Med. Print: Pract. 14: 413-416.
• Young E.J. 2005. Brucella species, pp. 2669-2674. In: Mandell G.L., J.E. Bennett and R. Dolin (eds). Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia.