4.7 Article

Is Streptococcus pyogenes Resistant or Susceptible to Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 50, 期 12, 页码 4067-4072

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02195-12

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [545234]
  2. NHMRC [605845]
  3. Australian Academy of Sciences
  4. NHMRC Early Career Fellowship [605829]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Streptococcus pyogenes is commonly believed to be resistant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT), resulting in reservations about using SXT for skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) where S. pyogenes is involved. S. pyogenes' in vitro susceptibility to SXT depends on the medium's thymidine content. Thymidine allows S. pyogenes to bypass the sulfur-mediated inhibition of folate metabolism and, historically, has resulted in apparently reduced susceptibility of S. pyogenes to sulfur antibacterials. The low thymidine concentration in Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) is now regulated. We explored S. pyogenes susceptibility to SXT on various media. Using two sets of 100 clinical S. pyogenes isolates, we tested for susceptibility using SXT Etests on MHA containing defibrinated horse blood and 20 mg/liter beta-NAD (MHF), MHA with sheep blood (MHS), MHA alone, MHA with horse blood (MHBA), and MHA with lysed horse blood (MHLHBA). European Committee on Antibacterial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints defined susceptibility (MIC, <= 1 mg/liter) and resistance (MIC, >2 mg/liter). In study 1, 99% of S. pyogenes isolates were susceptible to SXT on MHA, MHBA, and MHLHBA, with geometric mean MICs of 0.04, 0.04, and 0.05 mg/liter, respectively. In study 2, all 100 S. pyogenes isolates were susceptible to SXT on MHF, MHS, MHA, and MHLHBA with geometric mean MICs of 0.07, 0.16, 0.07, and 0.09 mg/liter, respectively. This study confirms the in vitro susceptibility of S. pyogenes to SXT, providing support for the use of SXT for SSTIs. A clinical trial using SXT for impetigo is ongoing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据