Search results for: Recep%20Kesli

Authors: Recep Kesli, Huseyin Bilgin, Yasar Unlu, Gokhan Gungor

Abstract:

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic values of two different molecular-based tests (GenoType® HelicoDR ve Seeplex® H. pylori-ClaR- ACE Detection) in detection presence of the H. pylori from gastric biopsy specimens. In addition to this also was aimed to determine resistance ratios of H. pylori strains against to clarytromycine and quinolone isolated from gastric biopsy material cultures by using both the genotypic (GenoType® HelicoDR, Seeplex ® H. pylori -ClaR- ACE Detection) and phenotypic (gradient strip, E-test) methods. Material and methods: A total of 266 patients who admitted to Konya Education and Research Hospital Department of Gastroenterology with dyspeptic complaints, between January 2011-June 2013, were included in the study. Microbiological and histopathological examinations of biopsy specimens taken from antrum and corpus regions were performed. The presence of H. pylori in all the biopsy samples was investigated by five differnt dignostic methods together: culture (C) (Portagerm pylori-PORT PYL, Pylori agar-PYL, GENbox microaer, bioMerieux, France), histology (H) (Giemsa, Hematoxylin and Eosin staining), rapid urease test (RUT) (CLOtest, Cimberly-Clark, USA), and two different molecular tests; GenoType® HelicoDR, Hain, Germany, based on DNA strip assay, and Seeplex ® H. pylori -ClaR- ACE Detection, Seegene, South Korea, based on multiplex PCR. Antimicrobial resistance of H. pylori isolates against clarithromycin and levofloxacin was determined by GenoType® HelicoDR, Seeplex ® H. pylori -ClaR- ACE Detection, and gradient strip (E-test, bioMerieux, France) methods. Culture positivity alone or positivities of both histology and RUT together was accepted as the gold standard for H. pylori positivity. Sensitivity and specificity rates of two molecular methods used in the study were calculated by taking the two gold standards previously mentioned. Results: A total of 266 patients between 16-83 years old who 144 (54.1 %) were female, 122 (45.9 %) were male were included in the study. 144 patients were found as culture positive, and 157 were H and RUT were positive together. 179 patients were found as positive with GenoType® HelicoDR and Seeplex ® H. pylori -ClaR- ACE Detection together. Sensitivity and specificity rates of studied five different methods were found as follows: C were 80.9 % and 84.4 %, H + RUT were 88.2 % and 75.4 %, GenoType® HelicoDR were 100 % and 71.3 %, and Seeplex ® H. pylori -ClaR- ACE Detection were, 100 % and 71.3 %. A strong correlation was found between C and H+RUT, C and GenoType® HelicoDR, and C and Seeplex ® H. pylori -ClaR- ACE Detection (r:0.644 and p:0.000, r:0.757 and p:0.000, r:0.757 and p:0.000, respectively). Of all the isolated 144 H. pylori strains 24 (16.6 %) were detected as resistant to claritromycine, and 18 (12.5 %) were levofloxacin. Genotypic claritromycine resistance was detected only in 15 cases with GenoType® HelicoDR, and 6 cases with Seeplex ® H. pylori -ClaR- ACE Detection. Conclusion: In our study, it was concluded that; GenoType® HelicoDR and Seeplex ® H. pylori -ClaR- ACE Detection was found as the most sensitive diagnostic methods when comparing all the investigated other ones (C, H, and RUT).

Keywords: Helicobacter pylori, GenoType® HelicoDR, Seeplex ® H. pylori -ClaR- ACE Detection, antimicrobial resistance

Procedia PDF Downloads 135

Authors: Recep Kesli, Cengiz Demir, Onur Turkyilmaz, Hayriye Tokay

Abstract:

Objective: Gram-negative rods are a large group of bacteria, and include many families, genera, and species. Most clinical isolates belong to the family Enterobacteriaceae. Resistance due to the production of extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) is a difficulty in the handling of Enterobacteriaceae infections, but other mechanisms of resistance are also emerging, leading to multidrug resistance and threatening to create panresistant species. We aimed in this study to evaluate resistance rates of Gram-negative rods bacteria isolated from clinical specimens in Microbiology Laboratory, Afyon Kocatepe University, ANS Research and Practice Hospital, between October 2012 and September 2015. Methods: The Gram-negative rods strains were identified by conventional methods and VITEK 2 automated identification system (bio-Mérieux, Marcy l’etoile, France). Antibiotic resistance tests were performed by both the Kirby-Bauer disk-diffusion and automated Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST, bio-Mérieux, Marcy l’etoile, France) methods. Disk diffusion results were evaluated according to the standards of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Results: Of the totally isolated 1.701 Enterobacteriaceae strains 1434 (84,3%) were Klebsiella pneumoniae, 171 (10%) were Enterobacter spp., 96 (5.6%) were Proteus spp., and 639 Nonfermenting gram negatives, 477 (74.6%) were identified as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 135 (21.1%) were Acinetobacter baumannii and 27 (4.3%) were Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. The ESBL positivity rate of the totally studied Enterobacteriaceae group were 30.4%. Antibiotic resistance rates for Klebsiella pneumoniae were as follows: amikacin 30.4%, gentamicin 40.1%, ampicillin-sulbactam 64.5%, cefepime 56.7%, cefoxitin 35.3%, ceftazidime 66.8%, ciprofloxacin 65.2%, ertapenem 22.8%, imipenem 20.5%, meropenem 20.5 %, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole 50.1%, and for 114 Enterobacter spp were detected as; amikacin 26.3%, gentamicin 31.5%, cefepime 26.3%, ceftazidime 61.4%, ciprofloxacin 8.7%, ertapenem 8.7%, imipenem 12.2%, meropenem 12.2%, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole 19.2 %. Resistance rates for Proteus spp. were: 24,3% meropenem, 26.2% imipenem, 20.2% amikacin 10.5% cefepim, 33.3% ciprofloxacin and levofloxacine, 31.6% ceftazidime, 20% ceftriaxone, 15.2% gentamicin, 26.6% amoxicillin-clavulanate, and 26.2% trimethoprim-sulfamethoxale. Resistance rates of P. aeruginosa was found as follows: Amikacin 32%, gentamicin 42 %, imipenem 43%, merpenem 43%, ciprofloxacin 50%, levofloxacin 52%, cefepim 38%, ceftazidim 63%, piperacillin/tacobactam 85%, for Acinetobacter baumannii; Amikacin 53.3%, gentamicin 56.6 %, imipenem 83%, merpenem 86%, ciprofloxacin 100%, ceftazidim 100%, piperacillin/tacobactam 85 %, colisitn 0 %, and for S. malthophilia; levofloxacin 66.6 % and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxozole 0 %. Conclusions: This study showed that resistance in Gram-negative rods was a serious clinical problem in our hospital and suggested the need to perform typification of the isolated bacteria with susceptibility testing regularly in the routine laboratory procedures. This application guided to empirical antibiotic treatment choices truly, as a consequence of the reality that each hospital shows different resistance profiles.

Keywords: antibiotic resistance, gram negative rods, ESBL, VITEK 2

Procedia PDF Downloads 303