Printer Friendly

Determination and Prevalence of Bacterial and Fungal Keratitis among Patients in Baghdad City.

Microbial keratitis is defined as a corneal infection which caused by a range of non-viral pathogens, including bacteria, protists and fungi (1). It characterized by pain and corneal ulceration with tissue infiltration,the vision will be affected according to the size and location of the ulcer (2).

The climate and socio-economic factors play an important role in the prevalence of each causative organisms, fungal infection is the main cause of corneal blindness, associated with agricultural injury (3). Saprophytic fungi reported as a causative agents and Candida albicans was considered pathogenic in 45.8% of keratitis (4). Hosted bacteria might infect the cornea, while the others can be found as normal flora on the lid margin (5).

The more virulent bacteria cause corneal destruction and it may be complete in 24-48 hours which will lead to ulceration, abscess, surrounding corneal edema and anterior segment inflammation (6).

Ocular surface disease such as trauma, surgery, topical steroid also increased wearing of contact lens and refractive surgery are additional risk factors (7). In Iraq, the common risky factors for microbial keratitis are corneal abrasions, and ocular surface disorders such as dry eye, trichiasis, old scars and most of them are sequels of cicatricial trachoma (8).

The study s aimed to determine the prevalence of microbial keratitis infection causatives and determination the susceptibility of the isolates to the most common antibiotics used.

Patients and Methods

This study was conducted in Ibn AlHaitham hospital of ophthalmology in Baghdad, A total of 234 patients attended the hospital from September 2017- Apri 2018, the patient's agreement was taken and information documented directly including the socio-demographic characters, age, and history of any disease.

The slit Lamp method was used to record the size and depth of the ulcer and the stromal suppuration. Height of hypopyon if present was also recorded (9).

The scraping was divided into two ports bacterial and fungal detection, blood agar (Himedia, India), chocolate agar, brain heartinfusion agar (Salucea/Germany), MacConkey agar (BDH/England), Sabaroud agar (Biolife / Italy) and Gram reaction. After incubation, positive microbial cultures were further biochemical reaction were done to identified the species as most Staphylococcus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. were identified by API system (bio Merieux) (10).

lacto phenol-cotton blue stain was used for examination of hyphae and spore morphological identification under the microscope (11).

Antibiotic susceptibility

Antibiotic susceptibility was monitored with the disk diffusion assay (Kirby-Bauer), the zone of inhibition was interpreted according to NCCLS guidelines (12).

The following antibiotics were tested Erythromycin (15 [micro]g), Clarithromycin (15 [micro]g), Chloramphenicol (30 [micro]g), Clindamycin (2 [micro]g), Tetracycline, (30 [micro]g), Doxycycline (30 [micro]g), Amikacin (30 [micro]g), Gentamicin (10 [micro]g), Ciprofloxacin (5 [micro]g), Ceftriaxone (30 [micro]g) supplied by HiMedia Lab. (India), reference strains of "Staphylococcus aureus ATCC25923, E. coli ATCC25922 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC27853" were used as a control. Antifungal drugs susceptibility was tested by using CLSI M38-A2 BMD method (13). The fungal isolates were tested for susceptibility to four antifungal agents: amphotericin B, natamycin, Itraconazole and voriconazole, "Candida krusei ATCC 6258 and C. parapsilosis ATCC 22019" were used as a controls.

Statistical Analysis Statistical Analysis

Chi-square test for statistical analysis. A P value <0.05 was used for finding the significance difference between the groups and correlated t-test was used to find the relation between the variables within the same group by using spss program (14).

RESULTS

Out of 234 patients having microbial keratitis, there were 147 (63%) patients with bacterial keratitis and 87 (37%) with fungal keratitis as shown in figure 1. Men with bacterial keratitis represented 60% (88) and women 40% (59), while men with fungal keratitis were 61% (53) and women 39% (34) as shown in figure 2. The results reveled that the number of the patients with bacterial keratitis were 82(56%) and 51(59%) with fungal keratitis from Baghdad while the internally displaced were 62(44%) and 36(41%) with bacterial and fungal keratitis, there was a significant differences between the two group as shown in table 1.

The results showed that the highest percentage of patients with bacterial keratitis and fungal keratitis were both (34%) at mean age of 73 [+ or -] 2.3 y while the lowest percentage of patients with bacterial keratitis was (18%) and with fungal keratitis (15%) at mean age of 25.5[+ or -] 1.4 y as showed in table 2.Most patients with bacterial keratitis recorded having diabetes mellitus(39%) and the rest of them having arthritis and hypertension (31%,30%) while the diabetic with fungal keratitis represented (41%) followed by arthritis and hypertension (35%,24%) as showed in table 3.

The results revealed that gram positive bacteria was 102 (69%) while gram negative 45 (31%), S.aureus was the most common cause of bacterial keratitis42(29%), followed by S.epidermidis 36(24%) then Streptococcus spp. 24(16%), Pseudomonas spp. 17 (12%), Proteus, spp. 13 (9%), Escherichia coli 9(6%) and Enterobacter spp 6(4%) while Aspergillus fumigates represented 26(30%) as the most common cause of fungal keratitis, Aspergillus flavus 19(22%), Aspergillus niger 16(18%), Pencillium spp 11(13%), Fusarium oxysporium. 8(9%), Fusarium solani 5(6%) and Candida spp 2(2%) as shown table 4.

The results of antibiotic susceptibility showed that S. aureus isolates were susceptible to Cloramphenicol and Ciprofloxacin (83%) followed by Doxycycline (81%) and Amikacin (74%) then Gentamycin, Erythromycin and Tetracycline (69%,64%,62%), while they were resistant to Clindamycin (57%). S. epidermidis isolates were susceptible to Cloramphenicol and Amikacin (86%) then Erythromycin and Doxycycline (83%) followed by Clindamycin, Ciprofloxacin and Gentamycin (81%,78%,75% ) respectively as shown in table 5.

Streptococcus spp isolates were susceptible to Tetracycline and Clindamycin (88%,83%) then Cloramphenicol (79%) followed by Erythromycin and Doxycycline (75%) both as shown in table 6.

Pseudomonas spp isolates showed their high susceptibility to Tetracycline(96%) followed by Cloramphenicol and Ciprofloxacin (88%) both and Amikacin, Doxycycline and Gentamycin(82%) each of them as shown in table 7.

The results showed that Enterobacter spp isolates were susceptible to Tetracycline and Gentamicin (100%) followed by Ciprofloxacin (83%) while E.coli isolates were susceptible to Cloramphenicol (100%) followed by Ciprofloxacin and Gentamicin (89%) both and they were resistant to Amikacin and Tetracycline (56%) both as shown in table 8.

Proteus spp isolates were susceptible to Cloramphenicol and Tetracycline (92%) followed by Ciprofloxacin (85%) and Ceftriaxone and Gentamicin (77%) as shown in table 9.

Antifungal susceptibility test showed that (98%) of Aspergillus spp isolates were sensitive to Itraconazole (98%), Voriconazole, Amphotericin B and Natamycin (95%,93%,92%) respectively, Pencillium spp. isolates were sensitive to Amphotericin B (100%) then Natamycin and Itraconazole (91%) both followed by Voriconazole (82%), as shown in table 10.

Fusarium spp isolates were sensitive to Natamycin and Itraconazole (100%) then Amphotericin B and Voriconazole (92%) both as shown in table 11.

The results reveled that Candida isolates were sensitive mostly to all types of the antibiotics were used in the study as showed in table 12.

DISCUSSION

Our study revealed that patients with bacterial keratitis were represented (63%) from the total patients with microbial keratitis, men represented the highest levels (60%) while fungal keratitis patients were (37%) and men represented (61%) of them The relatively highest percentage of males with microbial keratitis as a compression with females seen almost closely to some other studies (15,16). According to the socio-demographic characters, the number of patients with microbial keratitis from Baghdad represented (57%) while the internally displaced were (43%) and this might be related to unsuitable health conditions or inappropriate life issues.

There was high percentage of patients with microbial keratitis at mean age of 73.5 [+ or -] 0.3 and gradually decreases and these fining are different in other study in Baghdad, as the patients group (41-59) years were the most microbial keratitis infected with a percentage of (30.20 %), while the lowest infected (e" 60) year with a percentage of (17.80 %) and another study in south India they found that the age range of 41-60 years was more affected, this may be due to choosing of the common causes of infection (17) 18. The patients with bacterial keratitis recorded with diabetes mellitus were (39%) and the rest were having arthritis and hypertension (31%,30%) while the diabetic with fungal keratitis were (41%) followed by arthritis and hypertension (35%,24%) and these results disagree with other findings depending on the age and other chronic disease due to health style (food and environment) (19,20). The results revealed that gram positive bacteria was 102 (69%) and gram negative 45 (31%), S.aureus was the most common cause of bacterial keratitis42(29%), followed by S.epidermidis 36(24%) then Streptococcus spp. 24(16%), Pseudomonas spp. 17 (12%), Proteus, spp. 13 (9%), Escherichia coli 9(6%) and Enterobacter spp 6(4%) while the most common causes of fungal keratitis were Aspergillus fumigates 26(30%), Aspergillus flavus 19(22%), Aspergillus niger 16(18%), Pencillium spp 11(13%), Fusarium oxysporium. 8(9%), Fusarium solani 5(6%) and Candida spp 2(2%), these were agreed with other study in Baghdad as gram-positive isolates were (81.1%) from the total cases and Staphylococcus spp. was the most common isolates, Pseudomonas spp. was the first among gram-negative isolates (21). Other study conducted in Ibn Al-Hiatham Teaching Eye Hospital at 2003, found that Pseudomonas spp. was the most common bacterial isolates, followed by Staphylococcus spp. and fungal growth was detected in 13 cases (22) Other study founded coagulase negative staphylococci were the most common may be related to the variation to different climatic conditions, socioeconomic variables (23). Another study found that the fungal growth represented (18.7%), and Aspergillus spp. was 42 (56.8%) followed by Fusarium spp. 20 (27%), Pencillium spp. 4 (5.4%), Scopulariopsis spp. 2 (2.7%), Geotrichum spp. 1 (1.4%), Alternaria spp. 1 (1.4%) and Candida spp. 4 (5.4%) (24). other investigation found that the prevalence of fungal keratitis in Iraq the most common fungus isolated was Aspergillus spp. then Fusarium spp., Candida albicans and Scopulariopsis spp (25). Our results reveled that gram positive and negative bacterial isolates were susceptible to the most antibiotics used as S. aureus isolates were susceptible to Cloramphenicol and Ciprofloxacin (83%) followed by Doxycycline (81%), while they were resistant to Clindamycin (57%). S.epidermidis isolates were susceptible to Cloramphenicol and Amikacin (86%). Streptococcus spp isolates were susceptible to Tetracycline and Clindamycin (88%, 83%), Pseudomonas spp isolates showed their high susceptibility to Tetracycline(96%) followed by Cloramphenicol and Ciprofloxacin (88%) and these were agreed with other studies in China and Iran (26,27). Enterobacter spp isolates were susceptible to Tetracycline and Gentamicin (100%) while E.coli isolates were susceptible to Cloramphenicol (100%) but they were resistant to Amikacin and Tetracycline (56%) both, however, Proteus spp isolates were susceptible to Cloramphenicol and Tetracycline (92%) and theses findings were recorded in many other studies (28,29). fungal isolates showed high susceptibility as Aspergillus spp isolates were sensitive to Itraconazole (98%), Voriconazole then Amphotericin B and Natamycin (95%,93%,92%) respectively, Pencillium spp. isolates were sensitive to Amphotericin B (100%) then Natamycin and Itraconazole (91%) both while Fusarium spp isolates were sensitive to Natamycin and Itraconazole (100%) then Amphotericin B and Voriconazole (92%) both and Candida isolates were sensitive to the most antibiotics that used in the study, these results were matching to many other results in the same field (30,31).

CONCLUSIONS

Keratitis was very clear among the patients with ocular bacterial infections. S. aureus was the highest gram positive bacterial isolates followed by S.epidermids while gram negative dominant isolates were Pseudomonas spp. Aspergillus spp recorded high prevalence followed by Pencillium spp. Gram positive and negative isolates as well fungal isolates were susceptible to the most common tested antibiotics which will support the treatment strategies and control the common practice of self medication.

http://dx.doi.org/10.22207/JPAM.12.3.49

(Received: 10 June 2018; accepted: 20 July 2018)

REFERENCES

(1.) Zhang W, Yang H, Jiang L, Han L, Wang L. Use of potassium hydroxide, Giemsa and calcofluor white staining techniques in the microscopic evaluation of corneal scrapings for diagnosis of fungal keratitis. J Int Med Res. 2010; 38:196167. [PubMed]

(2.) Amrutha KB, Venkatesha D. Microbiological profile of Ulcerative Keratitis in a tertiary care hospital. Int J Res Health Sci 2014; 2: 599 03.

(3.) Sethi S, Sethi MJ, Iqba R. Causes of microbial keratitis in patients attending an eye clinic at Peshawar. Gomal J Med Sci 2010; 8:20 22.

(4.) Insan NG, Mane V, Chaudhary BL, Danu MS, Yadav A, Srivastava V. A review of fungal keratitis: Etiology and laboratory diagnosis. Int J CurrMicrobiolApp Sci 2013; 2: 307 14.

(5.) Itahashi, M. ; Higaki, S. ; Fukuda, M. and Shimomura, Y. Detection and Quantification of Pathogenic Bacteria and Fungi Using Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction by Cycling Probe in Patients With Corneal Ulcer. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010; 5: 535-40.

(6.) Hua, X.; Yuan, X. and Wilhelmus, K. R. A fungal PH- responsive dignaling pathway regulating Aspergillus adaptation and invasion into the cornea. IOVS 2010; 3:51.

(7.) Kumara,; Pandy, S.; Madan, M. ; Kavathia, G. Keratomycosis with Superadded Bacterial Infection Due To Corticosteroid Abuse-A Case Report. J Clini DiagRes. 2010; 4:2918-21.

(8.) Fawzy, G.; Al-Taweel, A. and Melake, N. In Vitro Antimicrobial and Anti-Tumor Activities of Intracellular and Extracellular extracts of Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus flavus var. columinaris. J Pharm 2011; 1:980-87.

(9.) Al-Yousaf, N. Microbial Keratitis in Kingdom of Bahrain: Clinical and Microbiology study. Middle East African J Ophthal. 2009; 16: 3-7.

(10.) Faiz I Al-Shakarchi Initial therapy for suppurative microbial keratitis in Iraq. J Ophthalmol 2007; 91:1583-87.

(11.) Hemavathi, P. Sarmah, and P. Shenoy, Profile of microbial isolates in ophthalmic infections and antibiotic susceptibility of the bacterial isolates: a study in an eye care hospital, Bangalore. J Clini Diag Res 2014; 8: 23-25.

(12.) Shimizu Y, Toshida H. Honda R et al., Prevalence of drug resistance and culture-positive rate among microorganisms isolated from patients with ocular infections over a 4-year period. J Clini Ophthalm, 2013; 7: 695-02.

(13.) Willcox M, Sharma S, Naduvilath T.J, Sankaridurg P.R., Gopinathan U.and Holden B. A. External ocular surface and lens microbiota in contact lens wearers with corneal infiltrates during extended wear of hydrogel lenses, J Clini Ophthalm 2011; 37(2): 90-95.

(14.) Li Y. "Microbial spectrum and resistance patterns of ocular infection in Tianjin Eye Hospital (2005-2009)," Shandong Medicine. 2010; 50: 65-66.

(16.) Giardini F., Grandi G., De Sanctis U. et al., "In vitro susceptibility to different topical ophthalmic antibiotics of bacterial isolates from patients with conjunctivitis," OculImmunol Inflam. 2011; 19: 419-21,

(17.) Torres I. M., Bento E. B.,. Almeida L. D., de S'a L. Z. and Lima E. M., Preparation, characterization and in vitro antimicrobial activity of liposomal ceftazidime and cefepime against Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains Brazilian J Micro 2012 ; 43: 984-92.

(18.) Mehta S., Mansoor H., Khan S., Saranchuk P., and Isaakidis P. Ocular inflammatory disease and ocular tuberculosis in a cohort of patients co-infected with HIV and multidrugresistant tuberculosis inMumbai, India: a cross-sectional study. BMC Infec Dis. 2013; 13: 225.

(19.) Chen X. and Adelman R. A., Microbial spectrum and resistance patterns in endophthalmitis: a 21year (1988-2008) review in Northeast United States. J Oculr Pharmacol and Ther. 2012; 28: 329-34.

(20.) Jain R.,.Murthy S., and.Motukupally S. R,"Clinical outcomes of corneal graft infections caused by multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa," Cornea, 2014; 33: 22-26.

(21.) Deren YT, Ozdek S, Kalkanci A, Akyurek N, Hasanreisolu B. Comparison of antifungal efficacies of moxifloxacin, liposomal amphotericin B, and combination treatment in experimental Candida albicans endophthalmitis in rabbits. Can J Microbiol 2010; 56: 1-7

(22.) Sun B, Li ZW, Yu HQ, Tao XC, Zhang Y, Mu GY. Evaluation of the in vitro antimicrobial properties of ultraviolet A/riboflavin mediated crosslinking on Candida albicans and Fusarium solani. Int J Ophtalmol 2014; 7: 205-210.

(23.) Borkar DS. Acanthamoeba, fungal, and bacterial keratitis: a comparison of risk factors and clinical features. Am J Ophthalmol 2014; 157: 56-62

(24.) Lalitha P, Sun CQ, Prajna NV, Karpagam R, Geetha M, O'Brien KS, Cevallos V, McLeod SD, Acharya NR, Lietman TM; Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial Group. In vitro susceptibility of filamentous fungal isolates from a corneal ulcer clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol 2014; 157: 31826.

(25.) Qiu WY, Yao YF. Mycotic keratitis caused by concurrent infections of Exserohilum mcginnisii and Candida parapsilosis. BMC Ophthalmol 2013; 13: 37.

(26.) Mukherjee PK, Chandra J, Yu C, Sun Y, Pearlman E, Ghannoum MA. Characterization of fusarium keratitis outbreak isolates: contribution of biofilms to antimicrobial resistance and pathogenesis Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2012; 53 : 4450-7.

(27.) Choi KS, Yoon SC, Rim TH, Han SJ, Kim ED, Seo KY. Effect of voriconazole and ultraviolet-A combination therapy compared to voriconazole single treatment on Fusarium solani fungal keratitis. JOculPharmacol Ther 2014; 30 : 381-6

(28.) Das S, Konar J. Bacteriological profile of corneal ulcer with references to Antibiotic susceptibility in a tertiary care hospital in West Bengal. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2013;11: 72 75.

(29.) Yoon KC, Jeong IY, Im SK, Chae HJ, Yang SY. Therapeutic effect of intracameral amphotericin B injection in the treatment of fungal keratitis. Cornea. 2007; 26:814-18. [PubMed]

(30.) Anane S, BenAyed N, Malek I, et al. Keratomycosis in the area of Tunis: epidemiological data, diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. Ann Biol Clin (Paris) 2010; 68: 441-47. [PubMed]

(31.) Anshu A, Parthasarathy A, Mehta JS, Htoon HM, Tan DT. Outcomes of therapeutic deep lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty for advanced infectious keratitis: a comparative study. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:615-23. [PubMed]

Zena K. Khalil, Alyaa M. Hadi and Saif S. Al-Kamil

Middle Technical University, Technical medical institute, Al-Mansur, Iraq.

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: saifeig83@yahoo.com

Caption: Fig. 1. Distribution of microbial keratitis among the patients

Caption: Fig. 2. Distribution of bacterial and fungal keratitis between men and women
Table 1. Distribution of the patients with bacterial ocular
infection according to the Socio-demographic characters

Socio-demographic      Patients with       Patients with
characters          bacterial keratitis   fungal keratitis

Baghdad                   82(56%)             51(59%)
IDP                       62(44%)             36(41%)
Total                    147(100%)            87(100%)

IDP internally displaced persons, p value (< 0.05)

Table 2. Disrebution of bacterial and fungal keratitis
according to age group

                                                      Number of
                                Number of patients    patients
                                  with bacterial     with fungal
Age/years   Mean [+ or -] SD       keratitis %       keratitis %

18-33       25.5 [+ or -] 0.4        26(18%)           13(15%)
34-49       41.5 [+ or -] 0.6        32(22%)           20(23%)
50-65       57.5 [+ or -] 0.1        38(26%)           24(28%)
66-81       73.5 [+ or -] 0.3        51(34%)           30(34%)

p value (< .05)

Table 3. Relation between the number of patients
with microbial keratitis and history of disease

                     Number of patients   Number of Patients
                       with bacterial        with fungal
History of disease      keratitis %          keratitis %

Diabetes mellitus         57(39%)              36(41%)
Arthritis                 46(31%)              30(35%)
Hypertension              44(30%)              21(24%)
Total                    147(100%)             87(100%)

p value (< 0.05)

Table 4. Profile of isolated bacteria and fungi
from patients with keratitis

Types of              Number           Types of           Number
isolated bacteria       (%)         isolated fungi         (%)

S.aureus              42(29%)    Aspergillus fumigatus   26(30%)
S.epidermidis         36(24%)     Aspergillus flavus     19(22%)
Streptococcus spp.    24(16%)      Aspergillus niger     16(18%)
Pseudomonas spp.      17(12%)       Pencillium spp.      11(13%)
Proteus spp.          13(9%)      Fusarium oxysporium     8(9%)
Escherichia coli       9(6%)        Fusarium solani       5(6%)
Enterobacter spp       6(4%)          Candida spp         2(2%)
Total                147(100%)           Total           87(100%)

Table 5. Antibiotic sensitivity and resistance of S.
aureus and S.epidermidis isolates.

                     MIC
Antibiotics    ([micro]g/ml)      S. aureus n=42

                  50    90      S        I       R

Erythromycin     0.25   64   27(64%)   2(5%)   13(31%)
Cloramphenicol   0.25   64   35(83%)   2(5%)   5(12%)
Clindamycin      0.06   64   16(38%)   2(5%)   24(57%)
Tetracycline      1     4    26(62%)   1(2%)   15(36%)
Amikacin         0.12   32   31(74%)   1(2%)   10(24%)
Gentamycin       0,25   8    29(69%)   2(5%)   11(26%)
Ciprofloxacin     8     8    35(83%)   2(5%)   5(12%)
Doxycycline      0.12   16   34(81%)   2(5%)   6(14%)

                    MIC
Antibiotics     ([micro]g/ml)   S.epidermidis n=36

                  50    90      S        I     R FRR

Erythromycin     0.25   64   30(83%)   1(3%)   5(14%)
Cloramphenicol   0.12   64   31(86%)   1(3%)   4(11%)
Clindamycin      0.06   32   29(81%)   2(6%)   5(14%)
Tetracycline      1     4    17(47%)   3(8%)   16(44%)
Amikacin         0.25   16   31(86%)   2(6%)    3(8%)
Gentamycin       0.25   16   27(75%)   3(8%)   7(19%)
Ciprofloxacin     8     8    28(78%)   2(6%)   6(17%)
Doxycycline      0.12   16   30(83%)   2(6%)   4(11%)

Table 6. Antibiotic sensitivity and resistance of
Streptococcus spp isolates

                   MIC            Streptococcus
Antibiotics    ([micro]g/ml)        spp.n=24

                  50    90      S        I        R

Erythromycin     0.12   64   18(75%)   2(8%)    4(17%)
Clarithromycin   0.25   64   17(70%)   2(8%)    5(21%)
Cloramphenicol   0.25   64   19(79%)   1(4%)    4(17%)
Clindamycin      0.12   64   20(83%)   1(4%)    3(13%)
Tetracycline     0.12   64   21(88%)   2(8%)    1(4%)
Doxycycline      0.25   64   18(75%)   2(8%)    4(17%)
Ciprofloxacin     1     2    15(63%)   3(13%)   6(25%)
Ceftriaxone      0.5    4    16(65%)   1(4%)    7(29%)

Table 7. Antibiotic sensitivity and resistance of
Pseudomonas spp isolates

                   MIC            Pseudomonas
Antibiotics    ([micro]g/ml)        spp. n=17

                 50   90      S          I         R

Amikasin         8    32   14 (82%)    1(6%)    2(12%)
Cloramphenicol   1    2    15(88%)     1(6%)     1(6%)
Tetracycline     8    32   16 (94%)      0       1(6%)
Doxycycline      1    2    14(82%)     1(6%)    2(12%)
Ciprofloxacin    1    16   15(88%)     1(6%)     1(6%)
Gentamicin       2    8    14(82%)    2(12%)     1(6%)

Table 8. Antibiotic sensitivity and resistance of
Enterobacter spp and E.coli isolates

                   MIC            Enterobacter
Antibiotics    ([micro]g/ml)        spp n=6

                 50   90      S        I        R

Amikacin         8    32   3(50%)    1(17%)   2(33%)
Cloramphenicol   1    2    3(50%)    1(17%)   2(33%)
Tetracycline     8    32   6(100%)     0        0
Doxycycline      1    2    3(50%)    1(17%)   2(33%)
Ciprofloxacin    1    16   5(83%)    1(17%)     0
Gentamicin       2    8    6(100%)     0        0

                   MIC
Antibiotics    ([micro]g/ml)     E.coli n=9

                 50   90      S         I      R FRR

Amikacin         16   32   4(44%)       0      5(56%)
Cloramphenicol   1    2    9(100%)      0        0
Tetracycline     8    8    4(44%)       0      5(56%)
Doxycycline      1    2    7(78%)       0      2(22%)
Ciprofloxacin    64   64   8(89%)    1(11 %)     0
Gentamicin       2    8    8(89%)    1(11 %)     0

Table 9. Antibiotic sensitivity and resistance of Proteus spp isolates

                     MIC                Proteus
Antibiotics          ([micro]g/ml)      spp n=13

                  50    90      S         I        R

Ceftriaxone      0.12   64   10 (77%)   2(15%)   1(8%)
Cloramphenicol   0.25   64   12(92%)    1(8%)      0
Tetracycline      8     8    12(92%)    1(8%)      0
Ciprofloxacin     16    16   11(85%)    1(8%)    1(8%)
Gentamicin       0.12   64   10(77%)    2(15%)   1(8%)

Table 10. Antibiotic sensitivity and resistance of
Aspergillus spp and Pencillium spp isolates

                      MIC            Aspergillus
Antifungal       ([micro]g/ml)       spp. n=61

                  50      90       S        I       R

Amphotericin B     2      4     57(93%)   1(2%)   3(5%)
Natamycin         32      32    56(92%)   2(3%)   3(5%)
Itraconazole     0.125   0.25   60(98%)   1(2%)     0
Voriconazole     0.25    0.5    58(95%)   1(2%)   2(3%)

                          Pencillium
Antifungal                spp. n=11

                    S         I      R

Amphotericin B   11(100%)     0      0
Natamycin        10(91%)    1(9%)    0
Itraconazole     10(91%)    1(9%)    0
Voriconazole      9(82%)    2(18%)   0

Table 11. Antibiotic sensitivity and resistance of Fusarium spp

                      MIC               Fusarium
Antifungal            ([micro]g/ml)     spp. n=13

                  50      90       S         I     R

Amphotericin B     2      4     12(92%)    1(8%)   0
Natamycin         32      32    13(100%)     0     0
Itraconazole     0.125   0.25   13(100%)     0     0
Voriconazole     0.25    0.5    12(92%)    1(8%)   0

Table 12. Antibiotic sensitivity and resistance
of Candida spp isolates

                      MIC             Candida
Antifungal       ([micro]g/ml)        spp. n=2

                  50      90       S        I      R

Amphotericin B     2      4     2(100%)     0      0
Natamycin         32      32    2(100%)     0      0
Itraconazole     0.125   0.25   1(50%)    1(50%)   0
Voriconazole     0.25    0.5    2(100%)     0      0
COPYRIGHT 2018 Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Khalil, Zena K.; Hadi, Alyaa M.; Kamil, Saif S. Al-
Publication:Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7IRAQ
Date:Sep 1, 2018
Words:4032
Previous Article:Treatment of Tuberculosis Patients in Thi-Qar province.
Next Article:Study of Virulence Factors in Urease-Positive Bacteria Isolated from Urinary Tract Infections Clinical Specimens.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |