Cole E C, Addison R M, Rubino J R, Leese K E, Dulaney P D, Newell M S, Wilkins J, Gaber D J, Wineinger T, Criger D A
DynCorp Health Research Services, Morrisville, NC, USA.
J Appl Microbiol. 2003;95(4):664-76. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.02022.x.
To describe the relationship between antibiotic and antibacterial resistance in environmental and clinical bacteria from home environments across geographical locations, relative to the use or nonuse of antibacterial products, with a focus on target organisms recognized as potential human pathogens.
In a randomized study, environmental and clinical samples were collected from the homes of antibacterial product users (n=30) and nonusers (n=30) for the isolation of target bacteria for antibiotic and antibacterial testing in three geographical areas (in USA and UK). Isolates were tested for antibiotic susceptibility, with selected antibiotic-resistant and antibiotic-susceptible isolates tested against four common antibacterial agents (triclosan, para-chloro-meta-xylenol, pine oil and quaternary ammonium compound). Prequalified users and nonusers at each location were randomly selected after meeting exclusionary criteria. Of 1238 isolates, more target bacteria were recovered from nonuser than user homes. Of Staphylococcus aureus isolates (n=33), none showed resistance to oxacillin or vancomycin; for Enterococcus sp. (n=149), none were resistant to ampicillin or vancomycin; and for Klebsiella pneumoniae (n=54)and Escherichia coli (n=24), none were resistant to third generation cephalosporins. Antibiotic resistance to one or more of the standard test panel drugs for Gram-positive and Gram-negative target bacteria was comparable between nonuser and user homes for both environmental and clinical isolates [e.g. resistance of environmental coagulase-negative (CN) Staphylococcus sp. was 73.8% (124/168) from nonuser homes and 73.0% (111/152) from user homes, and Enterobacteriaceae other than E. coli, 75.9% (186/245) from nonuser homes compared with 78.0% from user homes]. Of 524 Gram-negatives tested against preferred/alternative drugs, 97.1% (509/524) were susceptible to all antibiotics, across both groups. Isolates of S. aureus, Enterococcus sp. and CN Staphylococcus sp. susceptible to all preferred treatment drugs showed comparable antibacterial minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) results between nonuser and user home isolates. For Gram-positives resistant to one or more preferred drugs, greatest resistance to antibacterial active ingredients was found in the nonuser group. For Gram-negatives, the antibacterial MIC data were comparable for isolates that were fully susceptible and resistant to one or more preferred/alternative treatment antibiotics.
The results showed a lack of antibiotic and antibacterial agent cross-resistance in target bacteria from the homes of antibacterial product users and nonusers, as well as increased prevalence of potential pathogens in nonuser homes.
It refutes widely publicized, yet unsupported, hypotheses that use of antibacterial products facilitates the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria from the home environment.
描述不同地理位置家庭环境中的环境细菌和临床细菌对抗生素与抗菌耐药性之间的关系,同时考虑抗菌产品的使用情况或未使用情况,重点关注被视为潜在人类病原体的目标微生物。
在一项随机研究中,从抗菌产品使用者(n = 30)和非使用者(n = 30)的家中收集环境和临床样本,用于在三个地理区域(美国和英国)分离目标细菌,以进行抗生素和抗菌测试。对分离菌株进行抗生素敏感性测试,选择对一种或多种抗生素耐药和敏感的菌株,针对四种常见抗菌剂(三氯生、对氯间二甲苯酚、松油和季铵化合物)进行测试。在每个地点,符合排除标准后随机选择经过预先筛选的使用者和非使用者。在1238株分离菌株中,从非使用者家中分离出的目标细菌比使用者家中更多。在金黄色葡萄球菌分离株(n = 33)中,没有一株对苯唑西林或万古霉素耐药;对于肠球菌属(n = 149),没有一株对氨苄西林或万古霉素耐药;对于肺炎克雷伯菌(n = 54)和大肠杆菌(n = 24),没有一株对第三代头孢菌素耐药。对于革兰氏阳性和革兰氏阴性目标细菌,环境和临床分离株对一种或多种标准测试组药物的抗生素耐药性在非使用者和使用者家中具有可比性[例如,环境凝固酶阴性(CN)葡萄球菌属在非使用者家中的耐药率为73.8%(124/168),在使用者家中为73.0%(111/152);除大肠杆菌外的肠杆菌科细菌,在非使用者家中为75.9%(186/245),在使用者家中为78.0%]。在针对首选/替代药物测试的524株革兰氏阴性菌中,两组中97.1%(509/524)对所有抗生素敏感。对所有首选治疗药物敏感的金黄色葡萄球菌、肠球菌属和CN葡萄球菌属分离株,在非使用者和使用者家中分离株的抗菌最低抑菌浓度(MIC)结果具有可比性。对于对一种或多种首选药物耐药的革兰氏阳性菌,非使用者组对抗菌活性成分的耐药性最强。对于革兰氏阴性菌,对抗生素完全敏感和对一种或多种首选/替代治疗抗生素耐药的分离株的抗菌MIC数据具有可比性。
结果表明,抗菌产品使用者和非使用者家中的目标细菌不存在抗生素和抗菌剂交叉耐药性,且非使用者家中潜在病原体的患病率有所增加。
它驳斥了广泛宣传但无依据的假设,即使用抗菌产品会促进家庭环境中细菌的抗生素耐药性发展。