Literature DB >> 22929054

In vitro antibiotic susceptibility testing of Brucella isolates from Egypt between 1999 and 2007 and evidence of probable rifampin resistance.

Mohamed Abdel-Maksoud1, Brent House, Momtaz Wasfy, Bassem Abdel-Rahman, Guillermo Pimentel, Gehan Roushdy, Erica Dueger.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Brucellosis poses a significant public health problem in Mediterranean countries, including Egypt. Treatment of this disease is often empirical due to limited information on the antibiotic susceptibility profiles of Brucella spp. in this region of the world. The aim of this study was to determine the antibiotic susceptibility profiles of Brucella blood isolates in Egypt, a country endemic for brucellosis.
METHODS: Brucella spp. isolates were identified from the blood cultures of acute febrile illness (AFI) patients presenting to a network of infectious disease hospitals from 1999-2007. Minimum inhibitory concentrations were determined for tetracycline, gentamicin, doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, streptomycin, ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin and rifampin using the E-test. Interpretations were made according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines.
RESULTS: A total of 355 Brucella spp. isolates were analyzed. All were susceptible to tetracycline, doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, streptomycin and ciprofloxacin; probable resistance to rifampin and ceftriaxone was observed among 277 (64%) and 7 (2%) of the isolates, respectively. Percentages of isolates showing probable resistance to rifampin were significantly lower before 2001 than in the following years (7% vs. >81%, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high burden of brucellosis in Egypt and frequent empirical treatment, isolates have remained susceptible to the majority of tested antibiotics. However, this is the first report of high rates of probable resistance to rifampin among Brucella isolates from Egypt. Patients should be closely monitored while following standard treatment regimens. Continued surveillance, drug susceptibility studies and updated CLSI interpretive criteria are needed to monitor and update antibiotic prescribing policies for brucellosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22929054      PMCID: PMC3464789          DOI: 10.1186/1476-0711-11-24

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob        ISSN: 1476-0711            Impact factor:   3.944


Introduction

Brucellosis is endemic in many parts of the world, including Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia [1] and results in tremendous economic losses through reproductive failure in animals. Human disease is usually caused by B. melitensis[2,3] and is contracted mainly through exposure to Brucella-contaminated milk and contagious organs from infected animals [4,5]. In developing countries brucellosis is commonly present where small ruminants are kept. The disease was first reported in Egypt in 1939, and isolates characterized since then have belonged to B. melitensis biovar 3 [3]. In a previous surveillance study on acute febrile illness (AFI) patients in Egypt, the estimated annual incidence of brucellosis ranged from 64 to 70 per 100,000 population [6]. According to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, the recommended combination of treatment drugs for human brucellosis is doxycycline along with either rifampin or streptomycin [7], a recommendation that has been in place for more than a decade [8]. Although Brucella isolates are generally considered susceptible to these antibiotics, sporadic cases of antibiotic resistance and disease relapse have been reported [9,10]. However, routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing is generally not conducted for Brucella due to its fastidious growth requirements, risk of laboratory-acquired infections and need for biological safety level 2 or 3 precautions. The aim of this study was to take advantage of an unprecedented opportunity to test a repertoire of Brucella isolates (n = 355) collected from Egypt over an eight year period to define the most common species and evaluate the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of eight commonly used antibiotics. Trends of bacterial resistance will be evaluated during the study period.

Materials and methods

Brucella isolates were obtained from blood culture aspecimens collected between 1999 and 2007 during sentinel site surveillance activities for AFI conducted in 13 infectious disease hospitals from four regions in Egypt: Alexandria, the Nile delta, Cairo and Upper Egypt. The protocol was approved by NAMRU-3 institutional review board and informed consents were available from all patients who enrolled into this study. Isolates were identified based on colony morphology, Gram staining, oxidase and catalase testing, production of urease, the requirement of CO2 for growth, H2S production, sensitivity to dyes (e.g. basic fuchsin and thionin) and seroagglutination [11]. Confirmatory speciation testing was done using PCR [12]. Susceptibility to eight antibiotics – tetracycline, gentamicin, doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, streptomycin, ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin and rifampin – was determined using the E-test (AB Biodisk, Solana, Sweden), which is reliable, reproducible, easily performed and produces similar results to those of conventional methods for Brucella [8]. Briefly, Mueller-Hinton agar plates supplemented with 5% sheep blood were inoculated with bacterial suspensions calibrated to 0.5 McFarland standard turbidity and E-test strips were applied. The plates were placed in a 5% CO2 incubator for 48 hours and the resulting growth was examined to determine the MIC for streptomycin, tetracycline, doxycycline and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole according to CLSI guidelines for potential bacterial agents of bioterrorism [13]. Because breakpoints for Brucella against the other antibiotics tested have not been officially established, guidelines for slow-growing bacteria (Haemophilus spp.) were employed as has been done elsewhere [8]. Trends of bacterial resistance over the study period were evaluated. The reference strains H. Influenza ATCC 10211 and S. pneumonia ATCC 49619 were used as controls.

Results

All Brucella isolates were identified as B. melitensis by biochemical testing and PCR and were shown to be susceptible to tetracycline (MIC90 = 0.19 μg/ml), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (MIC90 = 0.19 μg/ml), doxycycline (MIC90 = 0.25 μg/ml) and streptomycin (MIC90 = 2 μg/ml). In addition, all strains were susceptible to ciprofloxacin (MIC90 = 0.38 μg/ml) according to the criteria for slow-growing bacteria (Table 1). However, the MIC values for rifampin ranged from 0.25-4.0 μg/ml, and according to CLSI breakpoints for slow-growing bacteria (Haemophilus spp.), reduced susceptibility (MIC 2-3 μg/ml) in 158 isolates (45%) and probable resistance (MICs ≥ 4 μg/ml) in 69 isolates (19%) were demonstrated. Only seven isolates (2%) demonstrated probable resistance to ceftriaxone (Table 2).
Table 1

MIC ranges, MICand MICvalues of eight antibiotics against isolates

AntibioticsRange (μg/ml)MIC50MIC90CLSI Breakpoints forBrucella(μg/ml)
SIR
Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole
0.006-0.75
0.047
0.19
≤ 2/38
-
-
Tetracycline
0.023-0.75
0.125
0.19
≤ 1
-
-
Doxycycline
0.016-0.5
0.125
0.25
≤1
-
-
Ciprofloxacin
0.125-0.75
0.25
0.38
≤ 1a
-
-
Ceftriaxone
0.064-4
0.5
1
≤ 2 a
-
-
Streptomycin
0.125-3
1.5
2
≤ 8
-
-
Gentamicin
0.094-3
0.5
1
Not defined
 
 
Rifampin0.25-624≤ 1 a2 a≥ 4 a

a CLSI breakpoints for slow-growing bacteria (Haemophilus spp.).

Table 2

Distribution of MICs values among isolates from AFI patients

MICsAntibiotics/No. of isolates
TSTCDCCIGMTXSMRI
0.006
2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0.008
8
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0.012
10
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0.016
26
 
1
 
 
 
 
 
0.023
40
3
1
 
 
 
 
 
0.032
48
7
5
 
 
 
 
 
0.047
62
24
19
 
 
 
 
 
0.064
37
66
49
 
 
3
 
 
0.094
28
67
72
 
1
2
 
 
0.125
44
100
108
2
7
6
4
 
0.19
19
57
58
12
21
14
4
 
0.25
11
23
29
32
49
30
10
4
0.38
13
6
10
22
47
69
10
2
0.5
3
1
3
9
81
98
21
10
0.75
4
1
 
2
77
77
41
24
1
 
 
 
 
47
41
61
37
1.5
 
 
 
 
18
8
80
51
2
 
 
 
 
5
6
89
79
3
 
 
 
 
2
 
35
79
4
 
 
 
 
 
1
 
69
8
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total35535535579355355355355

TS = trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, TC = tetracycline, DC = doxycycline. CI = ciprofloxacin, GM = gentamicin, TX = ceftriaxone, SM = streptomycin, RI = rifampin.

MIC ranges, MICand MICvalues of eight antibiotics against isolates a CLSI breakpoints for slow-growing bacteria (Haemophilus spp.). Distribution of MICs values among isolates from AFI patients TS = trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, TC = tetracycline, DC = doxycycline. CI = ciprofloxacin, GM = gentamicin, TX = ceftriaxone, SM = streptomycin, RI = rifampin. Although the number of isolates collected from the same regions per year was variable, the MIC for rifampin showed an increase over time. For example, the percentage of isolates showing probable resistance to rifampin was significantly lower (7%) in 85 isolates from 1999 and 2000 than in 270 isolates (81%) from 2001–2009 (p < 0.01) (Table 3).
Table 3

Percentages of isolates with reduced susceptibility to rifampin (MIC ≥2 μg/ml) from 1999–2007

YearNumber of isolates testedNumber of isolates with rifampin(MIC ≥2 μg/ml%
1999
19
1
5
2000
66
6
9
2001
63
41
65
2002
13
13
100
2003
10
10
100
2004
7
7
100
2005
20
20
100
2006
100
81
81
2007
57
46
81
Total35522563
Percentages of isolates with reduced susceptibility to rifampin (MIC ≥2 μg/ml) from 1999–2007

Discussion

Transmission of B. melitensis from small ruminants to humans has become a significant problem in Middle Eastern and Mediterranean countries [2,14]. Although some B. abortus has been diagnosed in Egypt [5,14], all Brucella spp. isolates identified in this study were B. melitensis, probably associated with transmission from small ruminants [3]. Screening 355 isolates against a panel of eight antibiotics by the E-test method showed that trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole had the lowest MIC values, in agreement with previous reports from Italy and Peru [2,15], but considerably lower than other previous studies carried out in Turkey [16,17]. Nevertheless, higher rates of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole resistance have been reported in other countries, including Mexico [18] and Saudi Arabia [19]. Tetracycline was active in vitro against all isolates, which is consistent with previous reports [8,20]. Similarly, the related doxycycline, which is a major component of most therapeutic regimens against Brucella infection, showed relatively low MICs, although lower values have been reported elsewhere [16,17]. While ciprofloxacin testing showed a significantly high MIC90 value, the effectiveness of this drug against Brucella infection remains controversial. Both higher and lower MICs have been reported previously for this drug [17,21,22]. All Brucella isolates were susceptible to streptomycin in agreement with previous studies from various countries [8,18]. For gentamicin, breakpoints have not been defined by CLSI, but the range of isolate MICs varied from 0.094-3 μg/ml, which is relatively higher than other values reported previously (0.064-1.5 μg/ml) [8]. Rifampin demonstrated the highest MIC90 value, with 45% of the isolates showing reduced susceptibility and 19% probable resistance, according to CLSI criteria for slow-growing bacteria (Table 2). To our knowledge, this is the first report of high rates of reduced susceptibility to rifampin among Brucella isolates from Egypt, suggesting the emergence of isolates with variable degrees of resistance to this drug (CLSI criteria for slow-growing bacteria). Only a few isolates (8-9%) with reduced susceptibility to rifampin have been described before in Turkey [16,23], Kuwait [24] and Mexico [18]. In another study conducted in Peru, only one Brucella isolate demonstrated reduced susceptibility to rifampin (1.0 μg/ml) [15]. Despite the high burden of human and animal brucellosis in Egypt and frequent empirical treatment, isolates have remained susceptible to the majority of test antibiotics. Whether or not the high rates of probable resistance to rifampin among Brucella isolates from Egypt had an impact on the treatment of patients is not known. One report from Egypt [9] observed relapse in 59.3% of the patients with osteoarticular brucellosis who were treated for 5 months or less with two drugs (rifampicin + doxycycline). By contrast relapse occurred in 7.9% of patients who were treated for more than 5 months. This report also noted that there was no relapse in patients who received 3 drugs (rifampicin + streptomycin + doxycycline) in combination, although treatment with streptomycin for long periods has been associated with ototoxic or nephrotoxic manifestations [25].

Conclusions

Future antimicrobial surveillance studies are critical to monitor patients for relapse or treatment failure and developing specific assessment breakpoints for testing the susceptibility of Brucella strains to rifampin and other appropriate antibiotics in Egypt and other endemic parts of the world.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contribution

MA-M developed the concept, processed the samples and participated in writing the manuscript. BH, MOW, GP, and ED developed the concept, analyzed the results, wrote and reviewed the manuscript. BA-R and GR processed the samples and helped in analyzing the results and writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Copyright assignment statement

Authors are employees of the U.S. Government. This work was prepared as part of their official duties. Title 17 U.S.C. §105 provides that ‘Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.’ Title 17 U.S.C. §101 defines a U.S. Government work as a work prepared by a military service member or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person’s official duties.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Department of the Navy, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Government, or the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population.

Financial support

This work was supported by a grant from the U. S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of Defense Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System (DoD-GEIS) (work unit number E022).
  20 in total

1.  Antimicrobial susceptibility of Brucella melitensis isolates in Peru.

Authors:  Ryan C Maves; Rosa Castillo; Alfredo Guillen; Benjamin Espinosa; Rina Meza; Nereyda Espinoza; Gladys Núñez; Luis Sánchez; Jesús Chacaltana; David Cepeda; Sofía González; Eric R Hall
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2011-01-03       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  In vitro activities of six new fluoroquinolones against Brucella melitensis.

Authors:  I Trujillano-Martín; E García-Sánchez; I M Martínez; M J Fresnadillo; J E García-Sánchez; J A García-Rodríguez
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Brucella bacteraemia: clinical and laboratory observations in 160 patients.

Authors:  Z Memish; M W Mah; S Al Mahmoud; M Al Shaalan; M Y Khan
Journal:  J Infect       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 6.072

4.  In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Brucella species.

Authors:  Nurcan Baykam; Harika Esener; Onder Ergönül; Sebnem Eren; Aysel K Celikbas; Başak Dokuzoguz
Journal:  Int J Antimicrob Agents       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.283

5.  In vitro activities of new macrolides and rifapentine against Brucella spp.

Authors:  J A García-Rodríguez; J L Muñoz Bellido; M J Fresnadillo; I Trujillano
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Brucellosis in man--II. Isolation of the causative organisms with special reference to blood picture and urine constituents.

Authors:  G M El-Olemy; A A Atta; W H Mahmoud; E G Hamzah
Journal:  Dev Biol Stand       Date:  1984

Review 7.  Brucellosis and international travel.

Authors:  Ziad A Memish; Hanan H Balkhy
Journal:  J Travel Med       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 8.490

8.  Susceptibility of Mexican brucella isolates to moxifloxacin, ciprofloxacin and other antimicrobials used in the treatment of human brucellosis.

Authors:  Ahidé López-Merino; Araceli Contreras-Rodríguez; Roberto Migranas-Ortiz; Rubén Orrantia-Gradín; Gerardo M Hernández-Oliva; Arturo Torres Y Gutiérrez-Rubio; Oscar Cardeñosa
Journal:  Scand J Infect Dis       Date:  2004

9.  Differentiation of Brucella abortus bv. 1, 2, and 4, Brucella melitensis, Brucella ovis, and Brucella suis bv. 1 by PCR.

Authors:  B J Bricker; S M Halling
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Human brucellosis: do we need to revise our therapeutic policy?

Authors:  Yasser M El Miedany; Maha El Gaafary; Manal Baddour; Ihab Ahmed
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.666

View more
  19 in total

1.  Species-specific PCR for the Diagnosis and Determination of Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Brucella Strains Isolated from Tehran, Iran.

Authors:  Gholam Reza Irajian; Faramarz Masjedian Jazi; Reza Mirnejad; Vahhab Piranfar; Taghi Zahraei Salehi; Noor Amir Mozafari; Ehsanollah Ghaznavi-Rad; Mahmoud Khormali
Journal:  Iran J Pathol       Date:  2016

2.  Reduced Susceptibility to Rifampicin and Resistance to Multiple Antimicrobial Agents among Brucella abortus Isolates from Cattle in Brazil.

Authors:  Rebeca Barbosa Pauletti; Ana Paula Reinato Stynen; Juliana Pinto da Silva Mol; Elaine Maria Seles Dorneles; Telma Maria Alves; Monalisa de Sousa Moura Souto; Silvia Minharro; Marcos Bryan Heinemann; Andrey Pereira Lage
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing of human Brucella melitensis isolates from Qatar between 2014 - 2015.

Authors:  Anand Deshmukh; Ferry Hagen; Ola Al Sharabasi; Mariamma Abraham; Godwin Wilson; Sanjay Doiphode; Muna Al Maslamani; Jacques F Meis
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 3.605

Review 4.  Retrospective and prospective perspectives on zoonotic brucellosis.

Authors:  Edgardo Moreno
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 5.640

5.  Identification and in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Brucella species isolated from human brucellosis.

Authors:  Rohaidah Hashim; Norazah Ahmad; Jama'ayah Mohamed Zahidi; B Y Tay; Azura Mohd Noor; Sakina Zainal; Hazwani Hamzah; S H Hamzah; T S Chow; P S Wong; K N Leong
Journal:  Int J Microbiol       Date:  2014-07-10

6.  Antimicrobial susceptibility of Brucella melitensis in Kazakhstan.

Authors:  Alexandr Shevtsov; Marat Syzdykov; Andrey Kuznetsov; Alexandr Shustov; Elena Shevtsova; Kalysh Berdimuratova; Kasim Mukanov; Yerlan Ramankulov
Journal:  Antimicrob Resist Infect Control       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 4.887

7.  Antibacterial effects of microbial synthesized silver-copper nanoalloys on Escherichia coli, Burkholderia cepacia, Listeria monocytogenes and Brucella abortus.

Authors:  Sheida Mohammadi; Nima Hosseini Jazani; Mehri Kouhkan; Leila Ashrafi Babaganjeh
Journal:  Iran J Microbiol       Date:  2018-06

8.  In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing of human Brucella melitensis isolates from Ulanqab of Inner Mongolia, China.

Authors:  Zhi-Guo Liu; Dong-Dong Di; Miao Wang; Ri-Hong Liu; Hong-Yan Zhao; Dong-Ri Piao; Zhong-Zhi Zhao; Yong-Qing Hao; Ya-Nan Du; Hai Jiang; Bu-Yun Cui; Xian-Zhu Xia
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 3.090

9.  Whole-genome sequencing and antimicrobial resistance in Brucella melitensis from a Norwegian perspective.

Authors:  Tone B Johansen; Lonneke Scheffer; Veronica K Jensen; Jon Bohlin; Siri L Feruglio
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Investigation of antibiotic susceptibilities of Brucella Strains isolated from various clinical samples in eastern Turkey.

Authors:  Esra Gültekin; Muhammet Hamidullah Uyanık; Ayşe Albayrak; Selçuk Kılıç
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 2.175

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.