Ophthalmic Research
Original Paper
Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Mediated Resistance among Bacterial Isolates Recovered from Ocular InfectionsJayahar Bharathi M.a · Ramakrishnan R.a · Ramesh S.b · Murugan N.aaDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Aravind Eye Hospital and Postgraduate Institute of Ophthalmology, and bPostgraduate Department of Microbiology, Sri Paramakalyani College, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: August 20, 2010
Accepted: November 12, 2010
Published online: June 29, 2011
Issue release date: December 2011
Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 2
ISSN: 0030-3747 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0259 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ORE
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate resistances mediated by extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) and AmpC β-lactamases among Gram-negative bacteria recovered from ocular infections. Methods: As per the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute M100-S-16 document, a total of 135 Gram-negative bacilli were recovered from ocular specimens and were subjected to phenotypic confirmation for ESBL production by the double-disc synergy test, cephalosporin and clavulanate combination disc test and E test, and, for AmpC β-lactamase, the modified double-disc approximation method and AmpC disc test. Results: In the double-disc synergy test, 21 (15.5%) isolates showed positive results against the cefpodoxime disc, 19 (14%) against cefpodoxime and cefotaxime, 15 (11%) against cefpodoxime, cefotaxime and ceftriaxone and 10 (7%) isolates were against cefpodoxime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone and ceftazidime discs. In the cephalosporin/clavulanate combination disc test, 19 (14%) isolates showed positive results against cefotaxime with clavulanic acid and 10 (7%) isolates against ceftazidime with clavulanic acid. In the E test, 10 (7%) isolates displayed positive results against ceftazidime and 19 (14%) against cefotaxime. In the AmpC disc test for phenotypic confirmation, indentations were observed in 15 (11%) isolates with flattening also occurring in 10 (7%) isolates. Conclusion: The incidences of ESBL- and AmpC β-lactamase-mediated resistances are found to be 7 and 18.5% among ocular isolates, respectively, and are more prevalent among the strains of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
References
- Paterson DL, Bonomo RA: Extended-spectrum β-lactamases: a clinical update. Clin Microbiol Rev 2005;18:657–686.
-
Byrne KA, Burd E, Tabbara K, Hyndiuk R: Diagnostic Microbiology and Cytology of the Eye. Boston, Butterworth Heinemann, 1995.
-
Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute: Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 17th informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S17. M2-A9 – performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests: approved standard, 19th ed. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, 2007, vol 27.
- Singhal S, Mathur T, Khan S, Upadhya DJ, Chugh S, Gaind R, Rattan A: Evaluation of methods for AmpC β lactamases in Gram negative clinical isolates from tertiary care hospitals. Indian J Med Microbiol 2005;23:120–124.
- Bonnet R: Growing group of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases: the CTX-M enzymes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004;48:1–14.
- Jones RN, Rhomberg PR, Varman DJ, Mathai D: A comparison of the antimicrobial activity of meropenem and selected broad-spectrum antimicrobials tested against multi-drug resistant Gram-negative bacilli including bacteraemic Salmonella spp. Initial studies for MYSTIC Program in India. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2002;20:426–431.
- Kumar MS, Lakshmi V, Rajagopalan R: Occurrence of extended spectrum β-lactamases among Enterobacteriaceae spp. isolated at a tertiary care institute. Indian J Med Microbiol 2006;24:208–211.
Article / Publication Details
Received: August 20, 2010
Accepted: November 12, 2010
Published online: June 29, 2011
Issue release date: December 2011
Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 2
ISSN: 0030-3747 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0259 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ORE
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
