Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians 2020; 12(04): 233-238
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1720943
Original Article

Association of Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Treatment Outcome in Acne Vulgaris Patients: A Pilot Study

Ashvini K. Yadav
1   Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
,
Suneel Bhooshan
1   Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
,
Allen Johnson
1   Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
,
Dinesh P. Asati
2   Department of Dermatology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
,
Shashwati Nema
1   Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
,
Debasis Biswas
1   Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes) is an emerging pathogen that is highly resistant to antibiotics and is capable of causing persistent infections that are difficult to treat.

Methods & Materials Acne vulgaris patients visiting dermatology OPD of our tertiary care hospital during the study period of 2 months were recruited. Skin swabs were collected, and the sample was processed on 5% sheep-blood agar for anaerobic culture by the GasPak method. Isolates were identified by the standard biochemical test. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed for clinically relevant antibiotics by the E-strip method. The clinical response was evaluated after 1-month follow-up to the prescribed antibiotics.

Results Minocycline, doxycycline, ceftriaxone, and tetracycline were the most effective antibiotics. Nonsusceptibility to clindamycin and erythromycin were observed in 11.9% and 31% isolates, respectively, with 9.5% isolates being nonsusceptible to both. For none of the antibiotics we found significant difference in the proportion of susceptible and nonsusceptible isolates between mild, moderate, and severe grades of acne vulgaris. For none of the antibiotic regimens, significant difference was observed between nonresponders and responders. Twenty-seven patients received clindamycin and among them 16 of 19 responders and 6 of 8 nonresponders yielded growth of clindamycin-susceptible isolates (p = 0.57).

Conclusion We observed significant prevalence of resistant strains of C. acnes among patients with acne vulgaris. No association was observed between in vitro susceptibility results and treatment outcome.

Keywords

Cutibacterium acnes - Acne vulgaris - Antibigram - In vitro susceptibility - Propionibacterium acnes


Publication History

Article published online:
30 December 2020

© 2020. The Indian Association of Laboratory Physicians. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Mohsen AH, Price A, Ridgway E, West JN, Green S, McKendrick MW. Propionibacterium acnes endocarditis in a native valve complicated by intraventricular abscess: a case report and review. Scand J Infect Dis 2001; 33 (05) 379-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kelly ME, Fourney DR, Guzman R, Sadanand V, Griebel RW, Sanche SE. Propionibacterium acnes infections after cranial neurosurgery. Can J Neurol Sci 2006; 33 (03) 292-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shames R, Satti F, Vellozzi EM, Smith MA. Susceptibilities of Propionibacterium acnes ophthalmic isolates to ertapenem, meropenem, and cefepime. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44 (11) 4227-4228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yocum RC, McArthur J, Petty BG, Diehl AM, Moench TR. Septic arthritis caused by Propionibacterium acnes. JAMA 1982; 248 (14) 1740-1741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Aubin GG, Portillo ME, Trampuz A, Corvec S. Propionibacterium acnes, an emerging pathogen: from acne to implant-infections, from phylotype to resistance. Med Mal Infect 2014; 44 (06) 241-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Platsidaki E, Dessinioti C. Recent advances in understanding Propionibacterium acnes (Cutibacterium acnes) in acne [version 1; referees: 2 approved] F1000Research 2018, 7(F1000 Faculty Rev):1953
  • 7 Bayston R, Ashraf W, Barker-Davies R. et al. Biofilm formation by Propionibacterium acnes on biomaterials in vitro and in vivo: impact on diagnosis and treatment. J Biomed Mater Res A 2007; 81 (03) 705-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Eady EA, Gloor M, Leyden JJ. Propionibacterium acnes resistance: a worldwide problem. Dermatology 2003; 206 (01) 54-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Song M, Seo SH, Ko HC. et al. Antibiotic susceptibility of Propionibacterium acnes isolated from acne vulgaris in Korea. J Dermatol 2011; 38 (07) 667-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tan HH, Goh CL, Yeo MG, Tan ML. Antibiotic sensitivity of Propionibacterium acnes isolates from patients with acne vulgaris in a tertiary dermatological referral centre in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2001; 30 (01) 22-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sardana K, Gupta T, Kumar B, Gautam HK, Garg VK. Cross-sectional pilot study of antibiotic resistance in Propionibacterium acnes strains in Indian acne patients using 16S-RNA polymerase chain reaction: a comparison among treatment modalities including antibiotics, benzoyl peroxide, and isotretinoin. Indian J Dermatol 2016; 61 (01) 45-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jousimies-Somer HR, Summanem P, Citron DM, Baron EJ, Wexler H, Finegold SM. Wadsworth-KTL Anaerobic Bacteriology Manual. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Star Publishing Co.; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Twenty-Eighty Informational Supplement M100–S28. Wayne, PA: CLSI; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Coates P, Vyakrnam S, Eady EA, Jones CE, Cove JH, Cunliffe WJ. Prevalence of antibiotic-resistant propionibacteria on the skin of acne patients: 10-year surveillance data and snapshot distribution study. Br J Dermatol 2002; 146 (05) 840-848 PubMed
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Oprica C, Emtestam L, Lapins J. et al. Antibiotic-resistant Propionibacterium acnes on the skin of patients with moderate to severe acne in Stockholm. Anaerobe 2004; 10 (03) 155-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gübelin W, Martínez MA, Molina MT, Zapata S, Valenzuela ME. Antimicrobial susceptibility of strains of Propionibacterium acnes isolated from inflammatory acne. Rev Latinoam Microbiol 2006; 48 (01) 14-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ergin C, Ergin S, Kaleli I, Kaçar N, Sengül M, Erdoğan BS. Nasal antibiotic-resistant Propionibacterium acnes carriage in acne vulgaris patients in Turkey. J Dermatol 2006; 33 (12) 899-901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Tan HH, Tan AW, Barkham T, Yan XY, Zhu M. Community-based study of acne vulgaris in adolescents in Singapore. Br J Dermatol 2007; 157 (03) 547-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 González R, Welsh O, Ocampo J. et al. In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Propionibacterium acnes isolated from acne patients in northern Mexico. Int J Dermatol 2010; 49 (09) 1003-1007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dumont-Wallon G, Moyse D, Blouin E, Dréno B. Bacterial resistance in French acne patients. Int J Dermatol 2010; 49 (03) 283-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Zandi S, Vares B, Abdollahi H. Determination of microbial agents of acne vulgaris and Propionibacterium acnes antibiotic resistance in patients referred to dermatology clinics in Kerman, Iran, 2008. Jundishapur J Microbiol 2011;4:17–22
  • 22 Schafer F, Fich F, Lam M, Gárate C, Wozniak A, Garcia P. Antimicrobial susceptibility and genetic characteristics of Propionibacterium acnes isolated from patients with acne. Int J Dermatol 2013; 52 (04) 418-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Luk NM, Hui M, Lee HC. et al. Antibiotic-resistant Propionibacterium acnes among acne patients in a regional skin centre in Hong Kong. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2013; 27 (01) 31-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mendoza N, Hernandez PO, Tyring SK, Haitz KA, Motta A. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Propionibacterium acnes isolates from acne patients in Colombia. Int J Dermatol 2013; 52 (06) 688-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Abdel Fattah NS, Darwish YW. In vitro antibiotic susceptibility patterns of Propionibacterium acnes isolated from acne patients: an Egyptian university hospital-based study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2013; 27 (12) 1546-1551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Crane JK, Hohman DW, Nodzo SR, Duquin TR. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Propionibacterium acnes isolates from shoulder surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57 (07) 3424-3426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ross JI, Snelling AM, Carnegie E. et al. Antibiotic-resistant acne: lessons from Europe. Br J Dermatol 2003; 148 (03) 467-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Moon SH, Roh HS, Kim YH, Kim JE, Ko JY, Ro YS. Antibiotic resistance of microbial strains isolated from Korean acne patients. J Dermatol 2012; 39 (10) 833-837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Furustrand Tafin U, Corvec S, Betrisey B, Zimmerli W, Trampuz A. Role of rifampin against Propionibacterium acnes biofilm in vitro and in an experimental foreign-body infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56 (04) 1885-1891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Deck DH, Winston LG. Tetracyclines, Macrolides, Clindamycin, Chloramphenicol, Streptogramins, & Oxazolidinones. In: Katzung BG, Trevor AJ. eds. Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. 13th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 2015: 792
    Google Scholar