Hande ARSLAN, Kurt Özlem AZAP, Can FÜSUN, Ebru ORUÇ, Funda TİMURKAYNAK, Müge DEMİRBİLEK

Salmonella ve Shigella suşlarında azitromisin duyarlılığı

Amaç: Diyare, tüm dünyada önemli bir morbidite ve mortalite nedenidir. Enterik patojenlerdeki direnç oranları her geçen gün arttığından tedavi seçenekleri kısıtlanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, hastanemizde izole edilen Salmonella ve Shigella suşlarında azitromisin duyarlılığının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Yirmi üç Shigella ve 35 nontyphoidal Salmonella suşunda azitromisin duyarlılığı CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) kriterlerine göre agar dilüsyon yöntemiyle çalışılmış ve MİK değerleri belirlenmiştir. Bulgular: Shigella suşları için MİK50 ve MİK90 değerleri 8mg/L (MİK aralığı 4-16mg/L) olarak bulunmuştur. Salmonella suşları için MİK50 değeri 8mg/L, MİK90 değeri >16mg/L (MİK aralığı 8->1- 6mg/L) olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Azitromisine duyarlı Salmonella ve Shigella suşu olmadığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada saptanan yüksek azitromisin MİK değerlerinin bu ilacın, solunum yolu infeksiyonlarında günde tek doz ve kısa süreli kullanım kolaylığı nedeniyle yaygın reçete edilmesine bağlı olabileceği düşünülmüştür.

The antimicrobial susceptibility of azithromycin against Salmonella and Shigella strains

Aim: Diarrhea is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The increasing rate of resistance among enteric pathogens limits the therapeutic alternatives. The aim of this study is to determine the susceptibility rates of Salmonella and Shigella strains against azithromycin. Materials and Methods: A total of 23 Shigella and 35 nontyphoidal salmonella strains were tested against azithromycin. MIC values were determined by agar dilution. Results: Both MIC50 and MIC90 values were 8mg/L (MIC range 4-16mg/L) for Shigella strains. MIC50 was determined to be 8mg/L and MIC 90 was >16mg/L for Salmonella strains (MIC range 8->16mg/L). Conclusion: None of these strains are susceptible to azithromycin. The high azithromycin MIC values obtained in this study may be due to the common prescription of macrolides and especially azithromycin for the treatment of upper and lower respiratory tract infections because of once daily dosing and relatively shorter duration of therapy. But the number of the strains studied are too few to reach a general conclusion.

PDF

___

1. Isenbarger DW, Hoge CV, Srijan A, et al. Comparative antibiotic resistance to diarrheal pathogens from Vietnam and Thailand, 1996-1999. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002; 8: 175-80.
2. Aysev AD, Guriz H, Erdem B. Drug resistance of Salmonella strains isolated in Ankara, Turkey, 1993-1999. Scand J Infect Dis. 2001; 33: 420-422.
3. Aysev AD, Guriz H. Drug resistance of Shigella strains isolated in Ankara, Turkey, 1993-1996. Scand J Infect Dis. 1998; 30: 351-353.
4. Khan WA, Seas C, Dhar U et al. Treatment of shigellosis: Comparison of azithromycin and ciprofloxacin: A double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 697-703.
5. Frenck RW, Mansour A, Nakhla I, et al. Short course azithromycin for the treatment of unconmplicated typhoid fever in children and adolescents. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38: 951-957.
6. Chinh NT, Parry CM, Ly NT, et al. A Randomised controlled comparison of azithromycin and ofloxacin for the treatmnet of multidrug-resistant or nalidixic acid-resistant enteric fever. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 1855-1859.
7. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically - Sixth Edition: Approved Standard M7-A6. NCCLS, PA, USA, 2003.
8. Frenck RW, Nakhla I,Sultan Y,et al.Azithromycin versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of unconmplicated typhoid fever in children. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 1134-1138.
9. Rakita RM, Palaz KJ, Murray B. Intracellular activity of azithromycin against bacterial enteric pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 1915-1921.