In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Propionibacterium acnes isolated from patients with acne vulgaris

Abstract

Introduction: Propionibacterium acnes has been implicated in the development of acne vulgaris. Rampant use of topical and systemic antibiotics for acne vulgaris has led to resistance due to selective pressure. This study aimed to determine antibiotic resistance of P. acnes. Methodology: A total of 102 samples were collected from acne lesions and cultured onto sheep's blood agar and brain-heart infusion agar supplemented with 5 g/L glucose and 2 mg/L furazolidone) (BHIg) under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Species identification was done by conventional methods and the VITEK2 Compact system. The isolates were tested for penicillin, erythromycin, clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, nadifloxacin, and tetracycline by E-test, and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of minocycline was determined by agar dilution on BHIg. MIC results were interpreted as per EUCAST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing) and CLSI (Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute) guidelines. Results: P. acnes was the most common anaerobe (66%) isolated. Resistance rates using EUCAST and CLSI breakpoints were 10.6% and 6.1%, 7.6% and 0%, 7.8% and 0% for erythromycin, clindamycin, and minocycline, respectively. Tetracycline resistance was observed in 9.2% isolates irrespective of the interpretative criteria used. MIC50 and MIC90 values for nadifloxacin (0.25 and 1 µg/mL) were found to be twofold lower than those for ciprofloxacin (0.5 and 1 µg/mL). Similarly, MIC50 and MIC90 values for minocycline (0.125 and 0.5 µg/mL) were also two-to threefold lower than those for tetracycline (0.38 and 1 µg/mL). Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study focusing on P. acnes resistance from India.

Characterisation of Cutibacterium acnes phylotypes in acne and in vivo exploratory evaluation of Myrtacine®

“…was relatively high in both groups (more than 54%) and did not differ significantly in term of CFU load. The literature reports various levels of resistance among C. acnes strains: from 6.1% to 7.6% of EryR strains to 98% of EryR strains, with various intermediate levels . Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that in most of these studies, (i) sampling was performed on the skin (with swabs) and did not always take into account the pilosebaceous gland containing C. acnes ; and (ii) one Cutibacterium isolate (the main) per patient was isolated by culture on nonselective agar (without antibiotics), then its sensibility to antibiotics was analysed.…”

Antibiotic resistance in acne: changes, consequences and concerns

“…Since then, the reported resistance rates have varied according to regions and have shown dynamic changes. The numbers of variables are enormous, as shown in Table 1 15–49 . The evaluation and comparison should consider the chronologic development, study setting (hospital based, general practice or in the general population), demographic backgrounds (age and gender), bacteria examined ( P. acnes, S. epidermidis or S. aureus ), sampling sites (face/forehead/cheeks/nostrils, back), sampling nische (lesional or non‐lesional, skin surface or follicular canal), types and severity of acne, pretreatment including types, doses, administration form, and duration of antibiotics, methods of bacterial isolation, and the detection and definition of antibiotic resistance.…”

Recurrent Lymphocytic Pleural Effusion as a Complication of Ventriculopleural Shunt Meningitis Caused by Cutibacterium Acnes

“…In 2013, a sampling of 98 patients showed that more than half of them were colonized with strains that are resistant to clindamycin and erythromycin [10]. In contrast, a study by Biswal et al showed that only 10% of isolates were resistant to clindamycin [11]. In a recent prospective study, Zhu et al demonstrated that many strains were sensitive to tetracyclines but higher resistant patterns were seen in patients who received topical or systemic antimicrobial therapy [12].…”