Türkan ÖZER TOKA, Erkan YULA, Alicem TEKİN, Özcan DEVECİ

Fusidic acid resistance among staphylococci strains isolated from clinical specimens in a general hospital

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, klinik örneklerden izole edilen stafilokok suşlarında fusidik asidin in vitro etkinliğinin araştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmaya çeşitli klinik örneklerden izole edilen 41 koagülaz negatif stafilokok (KNS) izolatı ile 18 Staphylococcus aureus suşu dahil edildi. Stafilokok izolatları besiyeri yüzeyindeki koloni morfolojisi, gram boyama, katalaz ve koagülaz testleri gibi konvansiyonel yöntemlerle identifiye edildi. İzolatların antimikrobiyal duyarlılıkları Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) önerileri doğrultusunda Kirby-Bauer disk difüzyon yöntemi kullanılarak çalışıldı. Bulgular: İzole edilen S.aureus suşlarının % 72si metisiline duyarlı (MSSA), % 28i metisiline dirençli (MRSA) olarak tanımlandı. MSSA ve MRSA suşlarının fusidik asit duyarlılık oranları arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmadı (p=0.305). İzole edilen KNSlerin % 29u metisiline duyarlı (MS-KNS), % 71i metisiline dirençli (MRKNS) olarak tanımlandı. MR-KNS ve MS-KNS suşlarının fusidik asit duyarlılık oranları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark yoktu (p=0.490). Ancak, KNS ve S.aureus suşlarının fusidik asit duyarlılık oranları arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı (p

Bir devlet hastanesindeki klinik örneklerden izole edilen stafilokok suşlarında fusidik asit direnci

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate in vitro susceptibility of fusidic acid to clinic isolates of staphylococci. Materials and methods: The forty-one coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS) and 18 Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from various clinical specimens were included in this study. Staphylococci isolates were identified by conventional methods such as colony morphology onto medium, gram staining, catalase and coagulase tests. According to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) criteria, antimicrobial susceptibility testing of isolates was performed by Kirby-Bauers disk diffusion method. Results: The seventy-two percent of the isolated S.aureus were defined as methicillin sensitive-S.aureus (MSSA), 28% of the isolated S.aureus were defined as methicillin resistant-S.aureus (MRSA). The difference among fusidic acid susceptibility rates of MSSA and MRSA strains was not statistically significant (p=0.305). The twenty-nine percent of the isolated CNS were defined as methicillin sensitive- CNS (MS-CNS), 71% of the isolated CNS were defined as methicillin resistant-CNS (MR-CNS). There was no statistically significant difference between MS-CNS and MR-CNS strains for fusidic acid susceptibility rates (p=0.490). But the difference among fusidic acid susceptibility rates of CNS and S.aureus strains was statistically significant (p<0.001). CNS strains were found more resistance than S.aureus strains for fusidic acid. Conclusion: In this study, the resistance rates were detected to increase for fusidic acid along with methicillin resistance. Among CNS isolates, fusidic acid resistance rates were significantly more elevated than that for S.aureus. Fusidic acid remains as an alternative in the treatment of infections due to staphylococci.

PDF

___

1. Castanheira M, Watters AA, Mendes RE, Farrell DJ, Jones RN. Occurrence and molecular characterization of fusidic acid resistance mechanisms among Staphylococcus spp. from European countries (2008). J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65(7):1353-8.
2. Castanheira M, Watters AA, Bell JM, Turnidge JD, Jones RN. Fusidic acid resistance rates and prevalence of resistance mechanisms among Staphylococcus spp. isolated in North America and Australia, 2007-2008. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010;54(9):3614-7.
3. Bodley JW, Zieve FJ, Lin L, Zieve ST. Formation of the ribosome- G factor-GDP complex in the presence of fusidic acid. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1969;37(3):437-43.
4. Gao YG, Selmer M, Dunham CM, Weixlbaumer A, Kelley AC, Ramakrishnan V. The structure of the ribosome with elongation factor G trapped in the posttranslocational state. Science 2009;326(5953):694-9.
5. Chen CM, Huang M, Chen HF, et al. Fusidic acid resistance among clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a Taiwanese hospital. BMC Microbiol 2011;11(1):98-102.
6. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Twentyfirst informational supplement. CLSI, M100-S21, 2011. Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA.
7. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST): Breakpoint tables for interpretations of MICs and zone diameters. EUCAST Clinical Breakpoint Table v. 1.1 2010-04-27. (http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/ src/media/PDFs)
8. Farrell DJ, Castanheira M, Chopra I. Characterization of global patterns and the genetics of fusidic acid resistance. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(Suppl 7):487-92.
9. McLaws FB, Larsen AR, Skov RL, Chopra I, ONeill AJ. Distribution of fusidic acid resistance determinants in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011;55(3):1173-6.
10. Chen HJ, Hung WC, Tseng SP, Tsai JC, Hsueh PR, Teng LJ. Fusidic Acid Resistance Determinants in Staphylococcus aureus Clinical Isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010;54(12):4985-91.
11. Fernandes P, Pereira D. Efforts to support the development of fusidic acid in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(Suppl 7):542-6.
12. Keşli R, Cander S, Çelebi S. Fusidic Acid Resistance of Methicillin Resistant and Sensitive Staphylococcus Strains Isolated From Clinical Specimens. Kocatepe Tıp Dergisi 2004;5(2):33-6.
13. Kuzucu Ç, Dalgalar M, Durmaz B. Metisiline dirençli Staphylococcus aureus ve koagülaz negatif stafilokoklarda fusidik asit duyarlılığı. ANKEM Derg 2003;17(1):7-9.
14. Uluğ M, Ayaz C, Celen MK. Fusidic acids place in the treatment of chronic staphylococcal osteomyelitis. Anatol J Clin Invest 2009;3(3):222-6.
15. Erdemoğlu A, Özsoy MF, Emekdaş G, Öncül O, Pahsa A. The resistance of Staphylococci isolated from urine to fusidic acid and other antimicrobials. Türk Mikrobiol Cem Derg 2000;30(1):6-12.
16. Altun B, Kocagöz S, Hasçelik G, Uzun O, Akova M, Ünal S. Susceptibilities to fusidic acid and frequently used antibiotics of Staphylococcus strains isolated in various hospitals. Türk Mikrobiyol Cem Derg 2003;33(1):8-11.
17. Şengöz G, Yıldırım F, Kart-Yaşar K, Şengöz A, Nazlıcan O. Resistance of Staphylococcus strains against fusidic acid and other antibiotics. Ankem Derg 2004;18(1):105-8.
18. Çelen MK, Ayaz C, Özmen E, Geyik MF, Hoşoğlu S. Resistance to fucidic acid in clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Klimik Derg 2005;18(1);114-6.
19. Nergiz S, Özekinci T, Gülhan B, Meşe S, Atmaca S. Resistance to fusidic acid in methicillin-resistant coagulase negative Staphylococci isolated from various clinical specimens. Ankem Derg 2007;21(2):228-31.
20. Ekşi F, Gayyurhan ED, Bayram A. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated in Gaziantep University Hospital. Ankem Derg 2008;22(2):203-8.
21. Mert Dinç B, Karabiber N, Aykut Arca E. Macrolide-Lincosamide- Streptogramin B (MLSB) resistance and fusidic acid susceptibility of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains isolated from clinical samples. Türk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Derg 2009;66(1):89-94.
22. Yaman G, Çıkman A, Berktaş M, Parlak M, Güdücüoğlu H, Karahocagil MK. The MLSB, fusidic acid and various antibiotic resistance rates of nosocomial Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Ankem Derg 2010;24(1):130-5.
23. Deveci Ö, Kılıç D, Kaygusuz S, et al. Evaluation of resistance to fusidic acid in Staphylococci isolates. J Microbiol Infect Dis 2011;1(1):22-5.