Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstract
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Addendum
Announcement
Art & Psychiatry
Article
Articles
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Commentary
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Cosmetic Dermatology
Cosmetology
Current Best Evidence
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatopathology
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
e-IJDVL
Editor Speaks
Editorial
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Errata
Erratum
Focus
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
General
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
History
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL AWARDS 2015
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL Awards 2020
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Index
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters in Response to Previous Publication
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Messages
Miscellaneous Letter
Musings
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News
News & Views
Obituary
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Oration
Original Article
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pearls
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Perspective
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Quiz
Recommendations
Regret
Report
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Retraction
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
SEMINAR
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Studies
Study Letter
Supplement-Photoprotection
Supplement-Psoriasis
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
SYMPOSIUM - VITILIGO
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology
View/Download PDF
Net letter
2008:74:4;430-430
doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.42886

In-vitro activities of current antimicrobial agents against isolates of pyoderma

KV Ramana, SK Mohanty, Arun Kumar
 Department of Microbiology, Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences, Narketpally, Nalgonda-508 254, India

Correspondence Address:
S K Mohanty
Department of Microbiology, Kamineni Institute of Medica lSciences, Narketpally, Nalgonda-508 254
India
How to cite this article:
Ramana K V, Mohanty S K, Kumar A. In-vitro activities of current antimicrobial agents against isolates of pyoderma. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2008;74:430
Copyright: (C)2008 Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology

Sir,

Pyoderma is a common health problem characterized by pyogenic infection of the skin and its appendages. Though easily treatable, the condition is known for its chronicity, recurrence, and other complications. Therefore, timely recognition and prompt bacterial diagnosis with antimicrobial sensitivity is imperative for the effective management and treatment of pyoderma. These lesions are usually produced by Gram positive bacteria, which constitute the majority of cases and less commonly, by Gram negative organisms. [1] The rapid emergence of multidrug resistance in most of the Gram positive bacterial isolates complicates the management of pyoderma and demonstrates the need for more judicious use of antimicrobial agents. [2] The present study has been designed to isolate and identify the bacteria causing pyoderma and their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns to different antibiotics with special reference to the newer generation of cephalosporins-Cefdinir and Cefditoren. This study included 140 pyoderma patients who were attending the Skin OPD of KIMS, Narketpally, between February, 2006 and February, 2007. Cases included in the study had abscess (48), furunculosis (31), cellulitis (26), ulcers (17), folliculitis (10), and diabetic feet (8). A pro-forma consisting of detailed history was taken; clinical and routine investigations were simultaneously done. Pus was collected on sterile cotton swabs from the sites of the lesions and inoculated into Blood Agar and MacConkey′s agar. After aerobic incubation at 37° C, morphology of the isolated organisms was studied and identification was done by standard bacteriological methods. [3] Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the isolated bacteria against Penicillin (10 µg), Ampicillin (10 µg), Oxacillin (1 µg), Gentamicin (10 µg), Ciprofloxacin (5 µg), Vancomycin (30 µg), Cefdinir (5 µg), and Cefditoren (5 µg) was done by using the disk diffusion method. [4]

Of the 140 pyoderma cases studied, males (75, 53%) constituted the majority (females 65, 46%) and most of the cases (64%) were > 40 years old. Staphylococcus aureus (52.1%) was the most commonly isolated organism followed by coagulase negative staphylococci (CONS) (19.2%), e nterococci ( 11.4%), Klebsiella (7.8%) and diphtheroids (2.8%). Nine (6.4%) swabs were culture-negative. Significant findings in the present study include the absence of Streptococci (except Enterococci ). The clinico-bacteriological profile of pyoderma cases in this study is shown in [Table - 1].

The antimicrobial susceptibility testing of isolates revealed greater resistance against penicillin (100%) and ampicillin (92%). Variable resistance against oxacillin was exhibited by S. aureus (19.1%), Enterococci (50%) and CONS (24%). Coagulase-negative S. aureus exhibited a considerable resistance against ciprofloxacin (25%) and vancomycin (15%). All S aureus isolates were sensitive to vancomycin except Enterococci (26%) and CONS (15%). Gentamicin was the only antimicrobial against which all isolates showed 100% sensitivity. S. aureus showed 100% sensitivity to Cefdinir and Cefditoren whereas CONS, Enterococci and Klebsiella showed decreased sensitivities of 88, 95 and 72% respectively, as shown in [Table - 2].

Pyoderma that extends over several months or years is a vexing clinical problem that has not been adequately solved. The results of the present study reveal that S. aureus , CONS, Enterococci -all Gram positive bacteria constitute 85.7% of the causative organisms in pyoderma cases in this region of study. Significant findings of the present study were the absence of Streptococci (except Enterococci ) and the isolation of both coagulase-positive and coagulase-negative Staphylococci in the majority of cases as compared to a study done by Nagmoti et al . who reported Streptococcus pyogenes in 35% of their cases. [5]

In the present study, all S. aureus isolates were sensitive to vancomycin and ciprofloxacin. On the other hand, Nagmoti et al . reported resistance to ciprofloxacin in 15% of the S. aureus isolates in their study. [5] In our study, CONS exhibited resistance against ciprofloxacin (25%) and vancomycin (15%) whereas no resistance was seen in a study done by Shoba et al . Pinnaa et al . showed CONS resistance of 9.5 and 2.3% against vancomycin and ciprofloxacin, respectively. [6] Oxacillin resistance of S aureus (19.1%) was considerably low in our study as compared to a study done by Onanuga et al . who reported a resistance of 71.7%. [7] S. aureus (52.1%) is the most common cause of infection as observed in other studies. Resistance against ciprofloxacin (26%), a useful alternative in the treatment of Enterococcal infections, was significantly higher in our study as compared to the findings of Schaberg et al . who reported 15% resistance. [8]

Our study′s results suggest that the era of antibiotics has ushered in an unprecedented predominance of Staphylococcal rather than Streptococcal infections. Increasing incidence of methicillin, ciprofloxacin and vancomycin resistance in Staphylococci and Enterococci has limited treatment options. Multidrug-resistant strains also possess the properties of transmissibility and virulence. More recently, possibly as a result of the introduction of newer antimicrobials and their extensive use, strains have been encountered that are resistant to greater numbers of antibiotics. In view of the already existing multidrug-resistant strains, physicians have sought to establish the efficacy of antimicrobial agents against such isolates.

References
1.
Snyder JW, McDonald LC, Van Enk R. Common bacteria whose susceptibility to antimicrobials is no longer predictable Leban Med J 2000;48:208-14.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Berkelman RL. The emergence and resurgence of bacterial infectious diseases In: Topley and Wilson's Microbiology and microbial infections. William J, Hausler MS Jr, editors. Bacterial infections. 9th ed. Vol. 3 Great Britain: Arnold; 1998. p. 167.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Baron EJ, Finegold SM. Overview of conventional methods for bacterial identification. In: Bailey and Scott's Diagnostic Microbiology. Forbes BA, Finegold DE, Weissfeld AS, editors. 10th ed. NY: Mosby Publications; 1998. P. 167.
[Google Scholar]
4.
Colle FG, Miles RS, Watt B. Tests for identification of bacteria. Gerald J, Collee, Barrie P, Marmon, editors. In: Mackie and McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996. p. 131.
[Google Scholar]
5.
Nagmoti M, Jyothi, Patil CS, Matgud SC. Bacteriological study of pyoderma in Belgaum. Indian J Med Microbial 1999;65:69-71.
[Google Scholar]
6.
Shoba KL, Rao PS, Thomas J. Survey of staphylococcus isolates among hospital personnel, environment and their antibiogram with special emphasis on methicillin resistance. Indian J Med Microbial 2005;23:186-8.
[Google Scholar]
7.
Onanuga A, Oyi AR, Olayinka BO, Onaolapo JA. Prevalence of community-associated multi-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among healthy women in Abuja, Nigeria.. Afr J Biotechnol 2005;4:942-5
[Google Scholar]
8.
Schaberg DR, Dillion WI, Tarpenning MS, Robinson KA, Bradley SF, Kauffman CA. Increasing resistance of enterococci to ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992;36:2533-5.
[Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
62

PDF downloads
25
Show Sections