J Med Microbiol 56 (2007), 1490-1494; DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.47353-0
© 2007 Society for General Microbiology
ISSN 1473-5644
In vitro activity of azithromycin, newer quinolones and cephalosporins in ciprofloxacin-resistant Salmonella causing enteric fever
Malini R. Capoor1,
Deepti Rawat1,
Deepthi Nair1,
Azra S. Hasan1,
Monorama Deb1,
Pushpa Aggarwal1 and
Parukutty Pillai2
1 Department of Microbiology, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Microbiology, Majeedia Hospital, Hamdard University, New Delhi, India
Correspondence
Deepthi Nair
deepthinair2{at}gmail.com
Received 18 April 2007
Accepted 6 July 2007
The therapeutic alternatives available for use against ciprofloxacin-resistant enteric fever isolates in an endemic area are limited. The antibiotics currently available are the quinolones, third-generation cephalosporins and conventional first-line drugs. In this study, the MICs of various newer drugs were determined for 31 ciprofloxacin-resistant enteric fever isolates (26 Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi and 5 S. enterica serovar Paratyphi A). MICs for ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, cefotaxime, cefixime, cefepime and azithromycin were determined using Etest strips and the agar dilution method. By Etest, all of the ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates had ciprofloxacin MICs 
32 µg ml–1. S. Typhi showed MIC90 values of 0.50, 0.25 and 0.38 µg ml–1 for cefixime, cefotaxime and cefepime, respectively. For the cephalosporins, a negligible difference in MIC90 and MIC50 values for S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi A was observed. A single isolate of S. Typhi showed a high azithromycin MIC of 64 µg ml–1. The MIC90 value for azithromycin in S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi was 24 µg ml–1. Gatifloxacin demonstrated lower resistance (80.8 %) compared with the other quinolones (92–100 %) in S. Typhi. The rise in MIC levels of these antimicrobials is a matter for serious concern.
 |
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
In India, ciprofloxacin has been the treatment of choice for enteric fever for over a decade. Unfortunately, after its introduction there was a decrease in the susceptibility to this drug, with consequent therapeutic failure (Capoor et al., 2006; Cooke et al., 2006; Kownhar et al., 2007; Renuka et al., 2005; Saha et al., 2006). This was detected in the laboratory as nalidixic acid resistance. It was followed by the widespread occurrence of isolates with decreased susceptibility to ciprofloxacin (indicated by nalidixic acid resistance, with ciprofloxacin MICs of 0.125–1.0 µg ml–1), associated with an impaired response to ciprofloxacin treatment, and the subsequent emergence of highly resistant isolates (ciprofloxacin MICs >1.0 µg ml–1). High-level ciprofloxacin-resistant enteric fever has evolved in Asian countries, including India (Capoor et al., 2006; Cooke et al., 2006; Gaind et al., 2006; Kownhar et al., 2007; Pokharel et al., 2006; Renuka et al., 2005; Saha et al., 2006). Resistance is also emerging to extended-spectrum cephalosporins (Capoor et al. 2006; Pokharel et al., 2006; Saha et al., 1999). These alternative regimens have several disadvantages such as expense, the intravenous route of administration required and prolonged defervescence time (Saha et al., 2006).
Azithromycin, a broad-spectrum azilide, has prolonged intracellular concentrations and a prolonged half-life. A large number of experimental and clinical trials carried out in the 1990s support its efficacy in traditional multidrug-resistant (ampicillin, chloramphenicol, co-trimoxazole and tetracycline) enteric fever (Butler et al., 1999; Girgis et al., 1999; Gordillo et al., 1993). However, studies reporting the MICs of azithromycin and newer quinolones in the current scenario of ciprofloxacin-resistant enteric fever are scarce (Frenck et al., 2004; Parry, 2004; Parry et al., 2007). The aim of this study was to determine the in vitro MIC patterns of various therapeutic alternatives available for the treatment of enteric fever in an endemic region reporting a recent increase in ciprofloxacin resistance.
|
METHODS
|
|---|
Quinolone-resistant Salmonella isolates were recovered from patients with enteric fever admitted to a 1570-bed tertiary care centre at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital and Majeedia Hospital, in New Delhi, India, from December 2004 to December 2006. Of 384 isolates of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (S. Typhi) and S. enterica serovar Paratyphi A (S. Paratyphi A), 31 (8.1 %) demonstrated ciprofloxacin (5 µg) resistance on screening using the Kirby–Bauer disc diffusion method. These were confirmed by biochemical reactions and serotyping with specific antisera using polyclonal, monovalent O, H and A antisera (Central Research Institute, Kasauli, India). They were also tested by the agar dilution method for their nalidixic acid MICs. The isolates were subjected to Etest strip (AB Biodisk) and agar dilution MIC testing to ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime and cefepime (Sigma) on cation-adjusted Mueller–Hinton agar (Difco). In addition, the MICs for ofloxacin, gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, cefotaxime, cefixime, cefepime and azithromycin were determined using the Etest strip method. The results were interpreted following Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines (CLSI, 2006). The breakpoint MIC levels for azithromycin have not been determined for isolates of S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi A (CLSI, 2006). In a previous in vitro study, azithromycin had an MIC range of 4–16 µg ml–1 against S. Typhi (Girgis et al., 1999).
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
|
|---|
Of the 31 resistant isolates, 26 were S. Typhi and 5 were S. Paratyphi A. Tables 1
and 2 show the MICs of ciprofloxacin-resistant S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi A, respectively, to ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime and cefepime as determined by agar dilution. Tables 3 and 4 show the MICs of the newer antimicrobials tested against the 31 ciprofloxacin-resistant S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi A isolates, respectively, as determined using Etest strips. All of the isolates had ciprofloxacin MICs 32 µg ml–1 by the Etest strip test and had nalidixic acid MICs 256 µg ml–1 by the agar dilution method (results not shown). By agar dilution, five S. Typhi isolates and one S. Paratyphi A isolate showed MICs 512 µg ml–1 (Tables 1 and 2). Gatifloxacin resistance was seen in 80.8 and 80 % of S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi A isolates, respectively. S. Typhi showed MIC90 values of 0.50, 0.25 and 0.38 µg ml–1 for cefixime, cefotaxime and cefepime, respectively, by Etest strip test. The MIC50 values of these agents were 0.19, 0.125 and 0.25 µg ml–1. For the cephalosporins tested, the difference in MIC90 and MIC50 for S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi A was minimal. A single isolate of S. Typhi showed a high azithromycin MIC (64 µg ml–1), and the MIC90 value for azithromycin was 24 µg ml–1 for both S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi A.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Agar dilution MICs of ciprofloxacin-resistant S. Typhi for ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime and cefepime
The CLSI (2006) interpretive criteria for sensitive, intermediate and resistant strains, respectively, are: ciprofloxacin (CIP),  1, 2 and 4 µg ml–1; cefotaxime (CTX), 8, 16–32 and 64 µg ml–1; cefepime (CEP), 8, 16 and 32 µg ml–1.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2. Agar dilution MICs of ciprofloxacin-resistant S. Paratyphi A for ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime and cefepime
For CLSI interpretive criteria see Table 1 .
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 3. MICs of ciprofloxacin-resistant S. Typhi by the Etest strip method
The CLSI (2006) interpretive criteria for sensitive, intermediate and resistant strains, respectively, are: ofloxacin (OFX) and levofloxacin (LVX), 1, 2 and 4 µg ml–1; gatifloxacin (GA), 2, 4 and 8 µg ml–1; cefixime (CFX), 1, 2 and 4 µg ml–1; cefotaxime (CTX), 8, 16–32 and 64 µg ml–1; cefepime (CPM), 8, 16 and 32 µg ml–1. Azithromycin (AZ) MIC breakpoints have not been defined.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 4. MICs of ciprofloxacin-resistant S. Paratyphi by the Etest strip method
For CLSI interpretive criteria see Table 3.
|
|
There was a discrepancy in the MICs observed in the Etest strip and agar dilution tests, which has been reported previously (Capoor et al. 2006). The first- and second-generation quinolones had varying results. Gatifloxacin (80.8 % resistance) demonstrated better in vitro activity compared with other quinolones (96.2 % resistance for ofloxacin and 92.3 % for levofloxacin) in S. Typhi. This finding was consistent with the results of a study from Nepal (Pokharel et al., 2006). These observations indicate that fluoroquinolones should be tested individually and that ciprofloxacin does not represent this group adequately. The ‘target-specific’ action of quinolones was originally studied in Streptococcus pneumoniae where quinolones have different binding-target affinities (Richardson et al., 2001). Disparity in the MIC levels of quinolones has been attributed to differences in the additional fluoro group and other substitutions in their chemical structure. There are no similar studies in Salmonella spp.
Amongst the cephalosporins tested against S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi A, cefotaxime had the lowest MIC50 and MIC90 levels. In a previous study, we showed that cefepime also had a high activity (Capoor et al., 2006). Cefixime is widely used in India due to its oral route of administration. This could be the reason for the rising MIC levels of third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins (Capoor et al., 2006; Saha et al., 1999), and their overuse can induce strains with extended-spectrum ß-lactamases (Pokharel et al., 2006).
Only one isolate of S. Typhi showed a high azithromycin MIC (64 µg ml–1) and the MIC90 was 24 µg azithromycin ml–1. This was slightly higher than previous reports, which have found the MIC range to be 4–16 µg ml–1 (Girgis et al., 1999; Butler et al., 1999). There are as yet no data on the break points of azithromycin for enteric fever (CLSI, 2006). Thus, molecular analysis of such strains with higher MICs is warranted. The MIC90 value observed by Butler et al. (1999) was higher for S. Paratyphi A compared with S. Typhi. A single isolate of S. Typhi with an MIC of 32 µg ml–1 was detected as early as 1999. In our study, the MIC90 values for S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi A were 24 µg ml–1. In enteric fever, the role of azithromycin needs to be appreciated, as it is highly effective in removing intracellular salmonellae, defervescence is rapid, gastrointestinal carriage is eradicated and it represents a potential alternative in paediatric populations where quinolones are contraindicated (Girgis et al., 1999). The higher clinical and bacteriological cure rate is attributable to the >100-fold intracellular concentrations of azithromycin in macrophages compared with serum (Butler et al., 1999; Frenck et al., 2004; Girgis et al., 1999; Gordillo et al., 1993; Parry, 2004; Parry et al., 2007). Thus, there is speculation that intracellular MICs may not be represented fully by the currently available in vitro MIC testing methods and therefore such testing should be coupled with therapeutic trials. As this was a retrospective study, the therapeutic efficacy of this drug was not determined. Due to its negligible relapse rate and faecal carriage, and its favourable outpatient compliance, azithromycin could become the preferred drug of choice over ceftriaxone, ofloxacin and chloramphenicol.
The indiscriminate use in patients of the existing therapeutic options for enteric fever, and a concomitant rise in MIC levels demonstrated for these antimicrobials for S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi A in the current study and in prior studies (Frenck et al., 2004; Gordillo et al., 1993; Kownhar et al., 2007; Parry, 2004) is a serious concern. The effects of some of the newer drugs, such as tigecycline and carbapenems, against salmonellae have yet to be elucidated by in vitro and in vivo trials. The presence of fluoroquinolone resistance warrants a review of the current therapy and initiation of the search for a new effective and affordable drug. Meanwhile, azithromycin and other available antimicrobials will require large-scale, randomized clinical trials to establish their population efficacy.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
Butler, T., Sirdhar, C. B., Daga, M. K., Pathak, K., Pandit, R. B., Khakhria, R., Potkar, C. N. & Zelasky, M. T. (1999). Treatment of typhoid fever with azithromycin vs chloramphenicol in a randomized multicentre trial in India. J Antimicrob Chemother 44, 243–250.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Capoor, M. R., Nair, D., Hasan, A. S., Aggarwal, P. & Gupta, B. (2006). Narrowing therapeutic options in typhoid fever, India. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 37, 1170–1174.[Medline]
CLSI (2006). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 16th information supplement, M100-S16. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.
Cooke, F. J., Wain, J. & Threlfall, E. J. (2006). Fluoroquinolone resistance in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi. BMJ 333, 353–354.[Free Full Text]
Frenck, R. W., Jr, Mansour, A., Nakhla, I., Sultan, Y., Putnam, S., Wierzba, T., Morsy, M. & Knirsch, C. (2004). Short course azithromycin for the treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever in children and adolescents. Clin Infect Dis 38, 951–957.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gaind, R., Paglietti, B., Murgia, M., Dawar, R., Uzzau, S., Cappuccinnelli, P., Deb, M., Aggarwal, P. & Rubino, S. (2006). Molecular characterization of ciprofloxacin-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi and Paratyphi A causing enteric fever in India. J Antimicrob Chemother 58, 1139–1144.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Girgis, N. I., Butler, T., Frenck, R. W., Sultan, Y., Brown, F. M., Tribble, D., Johnson, R. B. & Khakhria, R. (1999). Azithromycin versus ciprofloxacin for treatment of uncomplicated typhoid fever in a randomized trial in Egypt that included patients with multidrug resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 43, 1441–1444.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Gordillo, M. E., Singh, K. V. & Murray, B. F. (1993). In vitro activity of azithromycin against bacterial enteric pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 37, 1203–1205.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Kownhar, H., Shankar, E. M., Rajan, R. & Rao, U. A. (2007). Emergence of nalidixic acid-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi resistant to ciprofloxacin in India. J Med Microbiol 56, 136–137.[Free Full Text]
Parry, C. M. (2004). The treatment of multidrug resistant and nalidixic acid resistant typhoid fever in Vietnam. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 98, 413–423.[CrossRef][Medline]
Parry, C. M., Ho, V. A., Phuong, L. T., Bay, P. V., Lanh, M. N., Tung, L. T., Tham, N. T., Wain, J. & Hien, T. T. (2007). A randomized controlled comparison of ofloxacin, azithromycin and ofloxacin-azithromycin combination for treatment of multidrug resistant and nalidixic acid resistant typhoid fever. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51, 819–825.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Pokharel, B. M., Koirala, J., Dahal, R. K., Mishra, S. K., Khadga, P. K. & Tuladhar, N. R. (2006). Multidrug-resistant and extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Salmonella enterica (serotypes Typhi and Paratyphi A) from blood isolates in Nepal: surveillance of resistance and a search for newer alternatives. Int J Infect Dis 10, 434–438.[CrossRef][Medline]
Renuka, K., Sood, S., Das, B. K. & Kapil, A. (2005). High-level ciprofloxacin resistance in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi in India. J Med Microbiol 54, 999–1000.[Free Full Text]
Richardson, D. C., Bast, D., McGeer, A. & Low, D. E. (2001). Evaluation of susceptibility testing to detect fluoroquinolone resistance mechanisms in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 45, 1911–1914.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Saha, S. K., Talukder, S. Y., Islam, M. & Saha, S. (1999). A highly ceftriaxone-resistant Salmonella typhi in Bangladesh. Pediatr Infect Dis J 18, 387[CrossRef][Medline]
Saha, S. K., Darmstadt, G. L., Baqui, A. H., Crook, D. W., Islam, M. N., Islam, M., Hossain, M., Arifeen, S. E., Santoshan, M. & Black, R. E. (2006). Molecular basis of resistance displayed by highly ciprofloxacin-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi in Bangladesh. J Clin Microbiol 44, 3811–3813.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
M. R. Capoor, D. Nair, J. Posti, S. Singhal, M. Deb, P. Aggarwal, and P. Pillai
Minimum inhibitory concentration of carbapenems and tigecycline against Salmonella spp.
J. Med. Microbiol.,
March 1, 2009;
58(3):
337 - 341.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z. A Bhutta
A major burden on children
BMJ,
April 26, 2008;
336(7650):
948 - 949.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
TOP
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
