Year :
2023
| Month :
March
| Volume :
17
| Issue :
3
| Page :
DC17 - DC20
Full Version
Effectiveness of Minocycline in Multidrug Resistance Gram Negative Bacilli: A Cross-sectional Study
Published: March 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/60596.17644
Gunasekaran Santhi, Palraj Kennedy Kumar, Kopula Satyamoorthy Sridharan
1. Postgraduate Student, Department of Microbiology, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
2. Professor, Department of Microbiology, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
3. Professor and Head, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Palraj Kennedy Kumar,
Plot No. 35, West Patel Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Avadi, Chennai-600071, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: kennychennai1973@gmail.com
Abstract
Introduction: Antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat and remains a challenge for the physicians. Due to increased incidence of resistance to the commonly prescribed antibiotics, a newer drug or a re-emerge of an older class of antibiotic will be a choice of treatment of the Multidrug Resistant (MDR) organisms.
Aim: To determine the effectiveness of minocycline in MDR gram negative bacterial isolates by determining its Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and to compare its effectiveness with imipenem and meropenem.
Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional periodical study was conducted during May 2016 to May 2017 using 150 non repetitive MDR gram negative bacterial isolates recovered from various clinical specimens sent to Central Laboratory, Department of Microbiology, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, SRIHER, Porur, Chennai, India. All the isolates were subjected for antibiotic susceptibility testing by disc diffusion method for the routine antibiotics and MIC determination by Epsilometry test (E-strip) for minocycline and meropenem and interpreted as per Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines 2016. Statistical analysis was calculated with Open Epi using two by two table version 3.01.
Results: Out of the 150 study isolates minocycline was susceptible in 105 (70%) followed by imipenem and meropenem both susceptible for isolates 94 (62.7%). Minocycline was also susceptible among the 79 (84%) out of 94 of meropenem susceptible strains with a statistically significant p-value of <0.05. Similarly 26 (46.4%) out of 56 of meropenem resistant strains were susceptible for minocycline which was also statistically significant with a p-value <0.05.
Conclusion: Considering the cost of treatment with colistin which is the choice of treatment for carbapenemase producing gram negative bacteria’s, minocycline can be considered as it is cheaper and less toxic. The possibility to switch from injectable to oral formulation is also possible with minocycline and so can also be considered as an alternative for colistin in such conditions.
Keywords
Colistin, E-strip, Meropenem, Minimum inhibitory concentration
Introduction
Antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat. Infections caused by Multidrug Resistant (MDR) bacteria continue to be a challenge for the physicians in treating their patients. The morbidity and mortality are on the rise of the hospitalised patients because of Hospital Acquired Infections (HAI), which are many times are due to Multi or Pan Drug Resistance (PDR) organisms which are very difficult to treat as there is no new antibiotics are available in the recent past (1). World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates these infections to occur among hospitalised patients at a rate of 7-12% globally (2).
In India HAI is on the rise, so also the drug resistance. Many centres have reported on an average resistance to aminoglycosides ranging from 32.6-83.6%, resistance to β-Lactams (BL) and β-lactamase Inhibitors (BL-BLI) ranged from 41-80% (3). The carbapenem resistance rate among Gram Negative Bacilli (GNB) is 36.4%, whereas resistance to quinolones is approximately 30% [4,5]. Percentage of Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamases (ESBL) producers range from 66.8-71.5% (6). Colistin resistance rate is approximately 20% (7).
Minocycline is a second-generation tetracycline derivative, was first introduced in 1967 (8). Minocycline acts by inhibiting the bacterial protein synthesis by binding to the 30s ribosomal subunit and specifically preventing the enzyme binding of aminoacyl-tRNA (transfer RNA) to its acceptor site, and are considered bacteriostatic agents (9). Minocycline is a broad-spectrum antibiotic with a wide range of activity against aerobic and anaerobic gram positive cocci and gram negative organisms. In addition, they also have activity against Mycoplasma, Chlamydia, Rickettsia, Spirochetes, Nocardia and Legionella (10). As there is increase in the incidence of resistance to all of the commonly prescribed antibiotics a newer drug or a re-emerge of an older class of antibiotic will be a choice in the treatment of these MDR organisms. In this pursue, the current study was undertaken to evaluate minocycline susceptibility in MDR GNB.
Material and Methods
A cross-sectional periodical study was conducted between May 2016 to May 2017 in the Department of Microbiology, South India a tertiary care centre after obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) approval, REF: CSP-MED/16/JUN29/72.
Inclusion criteria: All the culture specimens sent to the laboratory during the study period growing non repetitive MDR GNB isolates were included in the study.
Exclusion criteria: Repetitive samples and highly susceptible (Non MDR) gram negative bacterial isolates were excluded from the study.
Study Procedure
A total of 150 non repetitive MDR gram negative bacterial isolates from clinical specimens of exudates, Broncho-Alveolar Lavage (BAL), urine and blood were included (Table/Fig 1). Study isolates were identified upto species level by conventional methods (Biochemical reactions like indole test, urease enzyme production, citrate utilisation. Triple sugar iron, manitol fermentation and motility test, phenyl alanine deaminase test, oxidase test, catalase test etc.,) and/automated methods (VITEK-2 system (Vitek2 GN-card; BioMerieux, Brussels, Belgium) (11). Antibiotic susceptibility testing of the isolates for ampicillin (10 μg), cephelexin (30 μg), cefotaxime (30 μg), cephalexin (30 μg), trimethoprim- sulfamethoxazole (1.25 μg and 23.75 μg), cefepime (30 μg), amikacin (30 μg), cefaperazone sulbactum (15/10 μg), piperacillin tazobactum (100 μg and 10 μg), nitrofurantoin (300 μg), ciprofloxacin (5 μg), levofloxacin (5 μg), imipenem (10 μg), meropenem (10 μg), ertapenem (10 μg) and tobramycin (10 μg) was done by disc diffusion method and interpreted as per Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines 2016 (12). MIC of the study isolates to minocycline, colistin and meropenem was done by Epsilometery strip (E-strip) obtained from HiMedia, Mumbai and interpreted as per CLSI guide lines 2016 (Table/Fig 2),(Table/Fig 3),(Table/Fig 4) (12). Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853 (Procured from HiMedia) were used as controls and the controls were satisfactory.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was calculated with Open Epi using two by two table version 3.01. The p-value was calculated by Chi-square test and p-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Results
A total of 150 gram negative bacterial isolates screened by disc diffusion as MDR from various clinical specimens, urine 84 (56%), pus 45 (30%), blood 13 (8.7%) and BAL 8 (5.3%), were included in this study. Out of these 150 samples, 87 were isolated from males and 63 from females (M:F ratio=1.4:1). The age of the study population ranged from one day to 94 years. (Mean age: 46.4 years). Bacterial isolates break up from the various clinical samples is shown in the (Table/Fig 5) and antibiotic susceptibility percentage of the study isolates for the routine antibiotics by disc diffusion method is shown in the (Table/Fig 6).
All the test isolates were subjected for MIC determination by Epsilometry test (E-strip) for minocycline, colistin and meropenem (Table/Fig 7),(Table/Fig 8),(Table/Fig 9). Susceptible percentage of test isolates were as follows: A total of 129 (95.5%; n=135, Protea group, Burkholderia spp., were excluded) were susceptible for colistin followed by 105 (70%) isolates for minocycline and 94 (62.7%) of the test isolates had shown susceptibility to meropenem.
Comparison of meropenem susceptibility by disc diffusion and E-strip method: A total of 100 (66.7%) isolates were susceptible by disc diffusion method. Whereas by E-strip method 94 (62.7%) of them were susceptible. All the test isolates (50) which were resistant by disc diffusion was also found to be resistant by E-strip method. Among the six which were susceptible by disc diffusion, the MIC ranged between 4-12 μg.
Minocycline susceptibility and its statistical significance: The comparison of susceptibility of minocycline and meropenem is shown in (Table/Fig 10). Among the 94 meropenem susceptible strains, 79 (84%) showed susceptible to minocycline with statistical significant p-value <0.05. A total of 26 (46.4%) out of 56 the meropenem resistant strains susceptible to minocycline with statistical significant p-value of < 0.05.
Discussion
In this era of MDR infections, especially in the hospitalised patients and also with limited antimicrobials available for managing such patients, minocycline is thought to be an effective alternate at present. Akers KS et al., in his study at military centre against MDR Acinetobacter spp showed a favourable clinical outcome with minocycline (13). A study done by Shankar C et al., against with Klebsiella pneumoniae reported 71.4% susceptibility to minocycline (14).
Colton B et al., reported 50% of colistin resistant strains were susceptible to minocycline but in this study, colistin was found to be highly efficacious against MDR strains rather than minocycline in-vitro (15). A comparative study done by Flamm RK et al., with tetracycline, doxycycline and minocycline reported that minocycline was found to be increasingly effective against MDR organisms (16). In current study, 70% of MDR organisms were susceptible to minocycline (16). Similarly study done by Vento TJ et al., with MDR E. coli reported as minocycline was effective against 85% of study isolates (17). In this study, 88.1% isolates showed susceptibility to minocycline. Ritchie DJ and Garavaglia-Wilson A, in their study with MDR Acinetobacter spp in 2014 has reported 80% susceptibility to minocycline, whereas, in this study, 75% of MDR Acinetobacter spp. were susceptible to minocycline (18). Castanheira M et al., again with MDR Acinetobacter has given susceptibility to colistin as 98.8% and minocycline 79.1% (19). In present study also, similar findings were observed. They also compared the efficacy of minocycline for various MDR GNB had shown the following: 81.4% susceptibility for Citrobacter followed by 81.4% for Enterobacter, 79.1% for Acinetobacter, 78.8% for Escherichia coli and 75.7% for Klebsiella spp. (19). In this study, 80% of the MDR Enterobacter was susceptible to minocycline followed by Acinetobacter spp. (75%), E. coli (88.1%) and Klebsiella spp. 57.9%. Adibhesami H et al., had reported only 56% of MDR Acinetobacter susceptible to minocycline (20). In contrast, this study had about 75% susceptibility. Vento TJ et al., had found 85% of MDR E. coli were susceptible to minocycline (17), whereas present study had only 88.1% susceptibility. Yang Y et al., has stated in their study that 82.4% of their study isolates i.e., Acinetobacter spp. were susceptible to minocycline (21). In another study by Parveen A and Bhat P, reported 40.5% of their Acinetobacter spp. isolates susceptible to minocycline (22); whereas in this study, 75% of Acinetobacter was susceptible to minocycline. Most of the findings done by various authors in different studies periods in different parts of the world have reported the efficacy of minocycline almost equal to the present study done in 2016 (22). A systematic review done by Fragkou PC et al., for MDR Acinetobacter baumannii showed a significant clinical and microbiological success rates following minocycline treatment as 72.6% and 60.2%, respectively (23). As the treatment of choice in MDR GNB usage of carbapenem like meropenem, imipenem and ertapenem are often practiced. In present study, among the 94 meropenem susceptible bacterial isolates, 84% were also susceptible for minocycline also and so it is very important to also consider minocycline as an alternative for meropenem where minocycline is cost-effective and least toxic comparatively. Similarly 26 (46.4%) of meropenem resistant strains were susceptible to minocycline, hence can also be used in conditions where organisms are producing carbapenemase and can replace colistin in these conditions.
Limitation(s)
Being a periodic study, only 150 MDR gram negative organisms were tested and colistin susceptibility would have been compared by performing microbroth dilution method.
Conclusion
Selection of appropriate and ideal antibiotics remains a main key f orthe treatment of MDR organisms. As minocycline is showing efficacy in carbapenemase producing GNB, minocycline can be used as an alternative for colistin in these conditions especially in patient admitted in Intensive Care Units as minocycline is cost-effective and less toxic. Minocycline can also replace the carbapenems in the treatment except for its bacteriostatic action.
Reference
| 1. | Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18:268-81.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 2. | World Health Organization. (2002). Prevention of Hospital-Acquired Infections: A Practical Guide/editors: G. Ducel, J. Fabry and L. Nicolle, 2nd.ed. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/67350.
| 3. | Khandal AK, Raghuraman D, Thirupathi DC, Masror GA. E. coli sensitivity pattern at tertiary hospital in telangana and its clinical significance. JMSCR. 2017;5(05):22681-87.
[ CrossRef] | 4. | Kumarasamy KK, Toleman AK, Walsh TR, Bagaria J, Butt F, Balakrishnan R, et al. Emergence of a new antibiotic resistance mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK: A molecular, biological and epidemiological study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10:597-602.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 5. | Ahmad S. Prevalence of ciprofloxacin resistance among gram-negative bacilli. J Med Sci. 2012;11(04):317-21.
[ CrossRef] | 6. | Gupta E, Mohanty S, Sood S, Dhawan B, Das BK, Kapil A. Emerging resistance to carbapenems in a tertiary care hospital in India. Indian J Med Res. 2006;124(1):95-98.
| 7. | Saini M, Mishra A, Gupta S. Prevalence of carbapenem resistance in gram negative bacilli isolates and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern. Int J Med Res Prof. 2016;2(3):28-32.
[ CrossRef] | 8. | Jonas M, Cunha BA. Minocycline. Ther Drug Monit. 1982;4(2):137-45.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 9. | Beard NJ, Armentrout JA, Weisberger AS. Inhibition of mammalian protein synthesis by antibiotics. Pharmacol Rev. 1969;21(3):213-45.
| 10. | Lashinsky JN, Henig O, Pogue JM, Kaye KS. Minocycline for the treatment of multidrug and extensively drug resistant A. baumannii: A review. Infect Dis Ther. 2017;6(2):199-211.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 11. | Tille Patricia M, author. Bailey & Scott’s Diagnostic Microbiology. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier, 2014.
| 12. | Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (2016): Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Twenty-Sixth Informational Supplement. CLSI Document M100-S26. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.
| 13. | Akers KS, Mende K, Yun HC, Hospenthal DR, Beckius ML, Yu X, et al. Tetracycline susceptibility testing and resistance genes in isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii- Acinetobacter calcoaceticus complex from a US military hospital. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(6):2693-95.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 14. | Shankar C, Nabarro LEB, Anandan S, Veeraraghavan B. Minocycline and tigecycline: What is their role in the treatment of carbapenem- resistant gram-negative organisms? Microb Drug Resist. 2017;23(4):437-46.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 15. | Colton B, McConeghy KW, Schreckenberger PC, Danziger HL. I.V minocycline revisited for infections caused by multi drug resistant organisms. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2016;73(5):279-85.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 16. | Flamm RK, Castanheira M, Streit JM, Jones RN. Minocycline activity tested against Acinetobacter baumannii complex, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Burkholderia cepacia species complex isolates from a global surveillance program (2013). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;85(3):352-55.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 17. | Vento TJ, Cole DW, Mende K, Calvano TP, Rini EA, Tully CC, et al. Multidrug- resistant gram-negative bacteria colonization of healthy US military personnel in the US and Afghanisthan. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:68.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 18. | Ritchie DJ, Garavaglia-Wilson A. A review of intravenous minocycline for treatment of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(Suppl 6):S374-80.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 19. | Castanheira M, Mendes ER, Jones NJ. Update on Acinetobacter species: Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance and contemporary in-vitro activity of minocycline and other treatment options. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(Suppl 6):S367-73.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 20. | Adibhesami H, Douraghi M, Rahbar M, Abdollahi A. Minocycline activity against clinical isolates of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Clin Microbio Infect. 2015;21(11):E79-E80.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 21. | Yang Y, Lee Y, Tseng KC, Huang W, Chuang M, Kuo SC, et al. In vivo and in- vitro efficacy of minocycline-based combination therapy for minocycline-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(7):4047-54.
[ CrossRef] [ PubMed] | 22. | Parveen A, Bhat P. Evaluation of tigecycline and minocycline susceptibility among clinical isolates of carbapenem resistant Acinetobacter Species. J Evolution Med Dent Sci. 2021;10(19):1408-12.
[ CrossRef] | 23. | Fragkou PC, Poulakou G, Blizou A, Blizou M, Rapti V, Karageorgopoulos DE, et al. The role of minocycline in the treatment of nosocomial infections caused by multidrug, extensively drug and pandrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: A systematic review of clinical evidence. Microorganisms. 2019;7(6):159. [ CrossRef] [ PubMed] |
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/60596.17644
Date of Submission: Oct 06, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Nov 12, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Dec 07, 2022
Date of Publishing: Mar 01, 2023
Author declaration:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? No
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. No
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Oct 07, 2022
• Manual Googling: Nov 10, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Dec 03, 2022 (4%)
Etymology: Author Origin
|