Phenotypic determination of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Nigeria

A. Idris, A. Kumurya, Y. Mohammed, Huda Mustapha
{"title":"Phenotypic determination of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Nigeria","authors":"A. Idris, A. Kumurya, Y. Mohammed, Huda Mustapha","doi":"10.4103/njecp.njecp_20_18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Phenotypic detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) has been problematic ever since its discovery in the early 1960s. The emergence of low-level resistant MRSA clones acquired in the community has only added to these difficulties. In 2005, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) published zone diameter (10), breakpoint guidelines for cefoxitin. However, a number of technical issues remain regarding the use of cefoxitin as a predictor for methicillin resistance. Materials and Methods: In these studies, 252 nonduplicate samples of staphylococcal isolates were collected from various clinical samples obtained from patients attending Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital. The isolates were subcultured and identified using standard bacteriological procedure according to CLSI (13). Antibiotic susceptibility testing was done using a modified form of the Kirby–Bauer method. Methicillin resistance was screened using disk-diffusion method with cefoxitin 30 μg and oxacillin 1 μg. Results: High percentage of the isolates were recovered from patients of age groups of 1–9 years and <1 year with 45.2% and 23.4%, respectively. About 77% isolates were obtained from blood culture followed by wound (11.5%) and ear swab (6.7%). MRSA prevalence of 20.6% and 25.8% was obtained in this study using cefoxitin (30 μg) and oxacillin (1 μg), respectively. High prevalence of MRSA was obtained from people of the old age group which may be due to used and misused of antibiotics. From the 252 isolates obtained in this study, 84.1%, 77.4%, and 77.0% were found to be susceptible to ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, and clindamycin, respectively. The least susceptible was found 49.2%, 52.0%, and 62.7% in erythromycin, co-trimoxazole, and tetracycline, respectively. Conclusion: The study revealed that routine phenotypic screening of MRSA gives a better result when both oxacillin and cefoxitin were used, especially in resource-limited areas where molecular analysis is not available.","PeriodicalId":19420,"journal":{"name":"Nigerian Journal of Experimental and Clinical Biosciences","volume":"21 1","pages":"1 - 6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nigerian Journal of Experimental and Clinical Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/njecp.njecp_20_18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Phenotypic detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) has been problematic ever since its discovery in the early 1960s. The emergence of low-level resistant MRSA clones acquired in the community has only added to these difficulties. In 2005, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) published zone diameter (10), breakpoint guidelines for cefoxitin. However, a number of technical issues remain regarding the use of cefoxitin as a predictor for methicillin resistance. Materials and Methods: In these studies, 252 nonduplicate samples of staphylococcal isolates were collected from various clinical samples obtained from patients attending Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital. The isolates were subcultured and identified using standard bacteriological procedure according to CLSI (13). Antibiotic susceptibility testing was done using a modified form of the Kirby–Bauer method. Methicillin resistance was screened using disk-diffusion method with cefoxitin 30 μg and oxacillin 1 μg. Results: High percentage of the isolates were recovered from patients of age groups of 1–9 years and <1 year with 45.2% and 23.4%, respectively. About 77% isolates were obtained from blood culture followed by wound (11.5%) and ear swab (6.7%). MRSA prevalence of 20.6% and 25.8% was obtained in this study using cefoxitin (30 μg) and oxacillin (1 μg), respectively. High prevalence of MRSA was obtained from people of the old age group which may be due to used and misused of antibiotics. From the 252 isolates obtained in this study, 84.1%, 77.4%, and 77.0% were found to be susceptible to ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, and clindamycin, respectively. The least susceptible was found 49.2%, 52.0%, and 62.7% in erythromycin, co-trimoxazole, and tetracycline, respectively. Conclusion: The study revealed that routine phenotypic screening of MRSA gives a better result when both oxacillin and cefoxitin were used, especially in resource-limited areas where molecular analysis is not available.
尼日利亚卡诺Aminu Kano教学医院耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌的表型测定
背景:自20世纪60年代初发现耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)以来,表型检测一直存在问题。在社区中获得的低水平耐药MRSA克隆的出现只会增加这些困难。2005年,临床和实验室标准协会(CLSI)发布了头孢西丁的区域直径(10),断点指南。然而,关于使用头孢西丁作为甲氧西林耐药性的预测指标,仍存在一些技术问题。材料和方法:在这些研究中,从Aminu Kano教学医院患者的各种临床样本中收集了252个非重复的葡萄球菌分离样本。根据CLSI(13),采用标准细菌学程序对分离物进行传代培养和鉴定。抗生素敏感性试验采用改良的Kirby-Bauer法进行。头孢西林30 μg,奥西林1 μg,采用圆盘扩散法筛选耐甲氧西林。结果:1 ~ 9岁和<1岁患者的分离菌回收率较高,分别为45.2%和23.4%。血液培养中分离株占77%,其次是伤口(11.5%)和耳拭子(6.7%)。头孢西丁(30 μg)和奥西林(1 μg)分别为20.6%和25.8%。MRSA的高发人群为老年人群,可能与抗生素的使用和误用有关。本研究获得的252株分离株中,对环丙沙星、庆大霉素和克林霉素敏感的分别为84.1%、77.4%和77.0%。红霉素、复方新诺明和四环素的易感率分别为49.2%、52.0%和62.7%。结论:本研究表明,当oxacillin和头孢西丁同时使用时,MRSA的常规表型筛查效果更好,特别是在资源有限且无法进行分子分析的地区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信