Silley Peter
MB Consult Limited, Bingley, West Yorkshire, BD16 4HA, UK.
Environ Microbiol. 2003 Apr;5(4):219-30. doi: 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2003.00425.x.
There is no universally accepted standard method for the isolation of Campylobacter spp. and it is considered that currently available isolation media are not yet optimal for the recovery of Campylobacter spp. from a range of sample types. Almost all methods incorporate antibiotics into the isolation media to inhibit growth of other bacteria within the sample. It is established that the incorporation of such antibiotics into isolation media will inhibit the growth of some Campylobacter spp. as well as other bacteria. The results of the use of such suboptimal isolation methods are that the isolates which 'survive' the isolation procedure will be those which: (i) are able to 'out compete' the rest of the bacteria in the sample, i.e. they are able to grow faster; (ii) are resistant to the antibiotics used in the isolation media; and (iii) are randomly selected by the laboratory technician as being a 'typical'Campylobacter spp. It is clear that such a procedure is intrinsically biased and will mean that species resistant to the antibiotics used in the media will be isolated. This introduces real doubt that the bacteria isolated are truly representative of those initially found on the sample. It is also becoming clear that Campylobacter spp. are rather difficult to isolate as pure cultures and many are in fact mixtures of more than one strain. Again this introduces great uncertainty as to the prevalence and distribution of respective species from the different sample types. This is especially true when considering isolation of Campylobacter spp. causing disease in man as there is no certainty that the selected isolate is that which was responsible for disease. The incorporation of antibiotics into the isolation media not only introduces the issue of species bias but perhaps more importantly exposes the Campylobacter spp. to a cocktail of antibiotics thereby providing the potential for them to 'switch on' antibiotic resistance mechanisms. It might be argued that this has always been the case for isolation of Campylobacter spp., however, we know that the antibiotic cocktails used in media over the last 10 years have changed and indeed there was a time when the filtration protocol which didn't use antibiotics was more widely used. As most reports in the literature do not state what methods were used to isolate Campylobacter spp. it is not possible to quantify any relationship between antibiotics used in the isolation media and susceptibility data. An approved method for Campylobacter susceptibility testing was not available until May 2002, all data generated prior to this date will have been generated using non-standard methods. As tremendous variability in the reproducibility data for Campylobacter spp. was observed during the development of the standard agar dilution susceptibility method, data generated with disk diffusion and broth microdilution methods must be considered with caution. It has been shown that, compared with the conventional agar dilution method, the E-test tends to give rise to lower minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for sensitive strains and higher MICs for resistant strains. There are no recommended antibiotic breakpoint concentrations for Campylobacter spp. A breakpoint is used to separate sensitive from resistant strains of bacteria and is thus crucial to any discussion of antibiotic resistance. This discussion is further complicated by introduction of the terms microbiological and clinical breakpoints. While a microbiological breakpoint can be a useful parameter with regard to identifying resistance factors it cannot on its own be used to predict whether that bacteria will respond to treatment from an appropriate antibiotic. Predicting clinical response is a function of the clinical breakpoint which considers the pharmacokinetic profile of the antimicrobial compound, i.e. the concentration of the antimicrobial compound in the body and the MIC. The National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) uses microbiological, pharmacokinetic and clinical data to establish breakpoints, without c and clinical data to establish breakpoints, without such considerations it is not possible to consider what is truly clinically sensitive and resistant. There are no reported studies that have systematically determined appropriate breakpoints for Campylobacter, there are data however, which relate MICs to clinical outcome. It is without dispute that microbiological resistance in Campylobacter spp. occurs as a result of mutation in the gyrA gene with single point mutations most frequently causing a four- to eightfold shift in the MIC. What is also clear is that if a high enough concentration of antimicrobial relative to MIC of the infecting organism can be achieved not only will the parent organism be killed but also the 'resistant' mutant. Considering the above and the concentrations of ciprofloxacin achieved in the gastro-intestinal tract it is not surprising that clinical cure can be demonstrated for organisms with an MIC of 32 microg ml(-1).
目前尚无普遍接受的用于分离弯曲杆菌属的标准方法,并且人们认为目前可用的分离培养基对于从一系列样本类型中回收弯曲杆菌属来说并非最佳选择。几乎所有方法都在分离培养基中加入抗生素以抑制样本中其他细菌的生长。已经证实,在分离培养基中加入此类抗生素会抑制一些弯曲杆菌属以及其他细菌的生长。使用这种次优分离方法的结果是,在分离过程中“存活”下来的分离株将是那些:(i)能够在样本中“战胜”其他细菌,即它们能够生长得更快;(ii)对分离培养基中使用的抗生素具有抗性;(iii)被实验室技术人员随机选为“典型”弯曲杆菌属的菌株。显然,这样的过程本质上是有偏差的,这将意味着对培养基中使用的抗生素具有抗性的菌株会被分离出来。这就引发了一个真正的疑问,即分离出的细菌是否真的代表了最初在样本中发现的细菌。同样越来越明显的是,弯曲杆菌属很难作为纯培养物分离出来,实际上许多都是不止一个菌株的混合物。这再次给不同样本类型中各个物种的流行率和分布带来了很大的不确定性。当考虑分离导致人类疾病的弯曲杆菌属时尤其如此,因为无法确定所选的分离株就是导致疾病的菌株。在分离培养基中加入抗生素不仅引入了物种偏差问题,也许更重要的是使弯曲杆菌属暴露于抗生素混合物中,从而为它们“开启”抗生素抗性机制提供了可能性。可能有人会说,分离弯曲杆菌属一直都是这样,然而,我们知道过去10年中培养基中使用的抗生素混合物已经发生了变化,而且确实有一段时间不使用抗生素的过滤方案被更广泛地使用。由于文献中的大多数报告没有说明用于分离弯曲杆菌属的方法,因此无法量化分离培养基中使用的抗生素与药敏数据之间的任何关系。直到2002年5月才有了弯曲杆菌属药敏试验的批准方法,在此日期之前生成的所有数据都是使用非标准方法生成的。在标准琼脂稀释药敏方法的开发过程中,观察到弯曲杆菌属的重复性数据存在巨大差异,因此必须谨慎考虑用纸片扩散法和肉汤微量稀释法生成的数据。已经表明,与传统琼脂稀释法相比,E试验往往会使敏感菌株的最低抑菌浓度(MIC)降低,而使耐药菌株的MIC升高。对于弯曲杆菌属没有推荐的抗生素折点浓度。折点用于区分细菌的敏感菌株和耐药菌株,因此对于任何关于抗生素抗性的讨论都至关重要。引入微生物学和临床折点这两个术语使这个讨论更加复杂。虽然微生物学折点在识别抗性因素方面可能是一个有用的参数,但它本身不能用于预测该细菌是否会对适当的抗生素治疗产生反应。预测临床反应是临床折点的功能,临床折点考虑了抗菌化合物的药代动力学特征,即抗菌化合物在体内的浓度和MIC。美国国家临床实验室标准委员会(NCCLS)使用微生物学、药代动力学和临床数据来确定折点,没有这些考虑就不可能确定真正的临床敏感和耐药情况。没有报告的研究系统地确定了弯曲杆菌属的适当折点,然而有一些数据将MIC与临床结果相关联。毫无疑问,弯曲杆菌属中的微生物学抗性是由于gyrA基因突变导致的,单点突变最常导致MIC发生4至8倍的变化。同样清楚的是,如果相对于感染生物体的MIC能够达到足够高浓度的抗菌剂,不仅亲本生物体将被杀死,而且“耐药”突变体也将被杀死。考虑到上述情况以及胃肠道中达到的环丙沙星浓度,对于MIC为32μg ml⁻¹的生物体能够证明临床治愈也就不足为奇了。