Kobashi Yoshihiro, Yoshida Kouichiro, Miyashita Naoyuki, Niki Yoshihito, Oka Mikio
Division of Respiratory Diseases, Department of Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki 701-0192, Japan.
J Infect Chemother. 2006 Aug;12(4):195-202. doi: 10.1007/s10156-006-0457-8.
We prospectively investigated the relationship between the clinical efficacy of treatment of pulmonary Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) disease and drug-sensitivity testing of MAC isolates for antituberculous drugs, new quinolone antibiotics, and clarithromycin (CAM). Fifty-two patients who satisfied the diagnostic criteria of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and who received treatment between April 1998 and December 2005, using combined therapy of rifampicin (RFP), ethambutol (EB), streptomycin (SM), and CAM, were enrolled in this study. The causative microorganisms isolated were Mycobacterium avium in 30 patients and M. intracellulare in 22 patients. Although separation of the two strains showed drug sensitivity testing to have slightly better minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) for M. intracellulare than for M. avium, there were no significant differences in the sputum eradication rate or clinical improvement between the two strains. The MICs of various antibiotics for the isolated MAC strains were as follows: RFP, 0.125-8 microg/ml; CAM, 0.25-16 microg/ml; SM, 2-128< or =microg/ml; EB, 128< or = microg/ml; levofloxacin (LVFX), 1-32 microg/ml; sparfloxacin (SPFX), 0.5-16 microg/ml; and gatifloxacin (GFLX), 0.25-8 microg/ml. The isolated MAC strains showed the same excellent drug sensitivity test results for RFP, new quinolones, and CAM, but they showed resistant drug-sensitivity results for EB and SM. Regarding the relationship between clinical efficacy and the MICs of RFP, EB, CAM, and SM, there was a good relationship only for CAM. Although the ATS has not yet recommended routine drug susceptibility testing of CAM, we believe that drug susceptibility testing of CAM should be performed before the initial treatment is undertaken for pulmonary MAC disease.
我们前瞻性地研究了肺部鸟分枝杆菌复合群(MAC)疾病治疗的临床疗效与MAC分离株对抗结核药物、新型喹诺酮类抗生素和克拉霉素(CAM)的药敏试验之间的关系。本研究纳入了52例符合美国胸科学会(ATS)诊断标准且在1998年4月至2005年12月期间接受利福平(RFP)、乙胺丁醇(EB)、链霉素(SM)和CAM联合治疗的患者。分离出的致病微生物中,30例为鸟分枝杆菌,22例为胞内分枝杆菌。虽然两种菌株的分离显示药敏试验中胞内分枝杆菌的最低抑菌浓度(MIC)略优于鸟分枝杆菌,但两种菌株在痰菌清除率或临床改善方面无显著差异。分离出的MAC菌株对各种抗生素的MIC如下:RFP,0.125 - 8微克/毫升;CAM,0.25 - 16微克/毫升;SM,2 - 128≤微克/毫升;EB,128≤微克/毫升;左氧氟沙星(LVFX),1 - 32微克/毫升;司帕沙星(SPFX),0.5 - 16微克/毫升;加替沙星(GFLX),0.25 - 8微克/毫升。分离出的MAC菌株对RFP、新型喹诺酮类药物和CAM显示出相同的良好药敏试验结果,但对EB和SM显示出耐药药敏结果。关于临床疗效与RFP、EB、CAM和SM的MIC之间的关系,仅CAM存在良好关系。虽然ATS尚未推荐对CAM进行常规药敏试验,但我们认为在对肺部MAC疾病进行初始治疗前应进行CAM的药敏试验。