Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Susceptibility

In Vitro Activities of Antibiotics Alone and in Combination against Brucella melitensis at Neutral and Acidic pHs

Murat Akova, Deniz Gür, David M. Livermore, Tanil Kocagöz, H. Erdal Akalin
Murat Akova
Department of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, 06100 Ankara, Turkey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deniz Gür
Department of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, 06100 Ankara, Turkey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David M. Livermore
Department of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, 06100 Ankara, Turkey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tanil Kocagöz
Department of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, 06100 Ankara, Turkey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H. Erdal Akalin
Department of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, 06100 Ankara, Turkey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.43.5.1298
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Brucellae survive acidic pHs in phagolysosomes. Azithromycin, streptomycin, and quinolones were active against Brucella melitensis at pH 7.0 but not at pH 5.0; rifampin and doxycycline retained activity at pH 5.0. Regardless of pH, azithromycin-rifampin and ofloxacin-rifampin showed less synergy than established streptomycin-doxycycline and rifampin-doxycycline combinations.

Brucellosis occurs worldwide but is most frequent in the Mediterranean basin and South America (13). Because the bacteria are intracellular, successful treatment requires antibiotics with good cellular penetration: combinations of doxycycline with either rifampin or an aminoglycoside usually are effective, but administration for 6 weeks is required and relapse is frequent (9). Consequently, new treatments are sought. Fluoroquinolones and newer macrolides have good anti-Brucella activity in vitro (1, 9, 12) and reach high intracellular concentrations, but their in vitro activity may predict efficacy poorly, since brucellae survive in compartments that are inaccessible or hostile to antimicrobial activity. These include the phagolysosomes of macrophages, where the pH may be as low as 5.0 (8). Acidity impairs the activities of quinolones and macrolides.

Moreover, as new antimicrobials may be used in combination, their interactions with established anti-Brucella agents need assessment. We therefore evaluated the in vitro activities of doxycycline, rifampin, streptomycin, quinolones, erythromycin, and azithromycin alone and in combination against Brucella melitensis at pH 5.0 and pH 7.0.

Bacteria.The 43 B. melitensis isolates were collected between 1991 and 1994 from blood or bone marrow cultures of individual inpatients with acute brucellosis at Hacettepe University Hospital. They were identified to the species level by conventional methods, on the basis of not requiring CO2 and not producing H2S. A class II biological safety cabinet was used.

MICs at different pH values.In vitro activities of doxycycline (Sigma, St. Louis, Mo.), streptomycin (Sigma), rifampin (Sigma), ofloxacin (Hoechst Marion Roussel, Istanbul, Turkey), ciprofloxacin (Bayer, Istanbul, Turkey), erythromycin (Sigma), and azithromycin (Pfizer, Istanbul, Turkey) were determined by microdilution. Mueller-Hinton broth (Oxoid, Basingstoke, Hants, United Kingdom), supplemented with 1% PoliVitex (BioMèrieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) and adjusted to pH 7.0 or pH 5.0, was used. The inoculum was 105 to 106 CFU per well, and the trays were incubated at 35°C. MICs were evaluated after 48 h. Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 served as controls.

Combination studies.Twenty of the 43 isolates were chosen randomly for the combination studies. The activities of azithromycin-rifampin, ofloxacin-rifampin, doxycycline-rifampin, and doxycycline-streptomycin were tested by checkerboard titration (5) at pH 7.0 or pH 5.0. The media, inocula, and conditions were the same as those for MIC tests. Fractional inhibitory concentrations (FICs) were calculated as (MIC of antibiotic in combination)/(MIC of antibiotic alone) and summed to give ΣFIC indices, which were classified as follows: ≤0.75, synergistic; 0.75 to 1, additive; 1 to 2, indifferent; ≥2, antagonistic (11).

Activities of individual antibiotics.All the antibiotics except erythromycin had good activities against most isolates at pH 7.0, with MICs at which 90% of the isolates were inhibited (MIC90s) below standard National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards breakpoints (10). The activity of rifampin was increased two- to eightfold at pH 5.0, but the MIC50s of ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, streptomycin, and azithromycin increased to well above their breakpoints. Doxycycline MICs were increased at pH 5.0, but the MIC90 remained below the breakpoint of 4 μg/ml (Table1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

In vitro activities of antibiotics against B. melitensis isolates (n = 43) in relation to pH

Activities of antimicrobial combinations.The activities of combinations at pH 7.0 and pH 5.0 are summarized in Fig.1A and B, respectively. The established rifampin-doxycycline and streptomycin-doxycycline combinations were synergistic against almost all (17 or 18 of 20) the isolates at pH 7.0. Synergism was observed with rifampin-doxycycline for 17 of 20 isolates at pH 5.0, whereas the streptomycin-doxycycline combination was synergistic for 7, additive for 12, and indifferent for 1. The rifampin-azithromycin combination was indifferent for activity against most (16 to 17 of 20) isolates at both pH levels, whereas the rifampin-ofloxacin combination was antagonistic for activity against 17 isolates at pH 7.0 but only for activity against 7 isolates at pH 5.0, with synergy apparent for four organisms.

Fig. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Interactions of different antibiotic combinations at pH 7.0 (A) and at pH 5.0 (B) against 20 B. melitensis isolates. R, rifampin; A, azithromycin; O, ofloxacin; D, doxycycline; S, streptomycin.

Brucellae grow and replicate in the phagolysosomes of macrophages, where the pH is 5.0 (8). Antimicrobials that penetrate this compartment and act under acidic conditions might be used as monotherapy. Only doxycycline and rifampin met these criteria, and neither is effective as monotherapy for brucellosis (9, 13). The fluoroquinolones and azithromycin had good activity at pH 7.0 but not at pH 5.0. Garcia-Rodriguez et al. (7) also found that the activity of fluoroquinolones against brucellae was two to fourfold lower at pH 5.0 than at pH 7.0. These data are supported by results of animal and clinical studies: azithromycin was less effective than doxycycline alone or with streptomycin for experimental brucellosis in mice (6), and Al-Sibai et al. (3) reported a 25% relapse rate with oral ciprofloxacin given for 6 to 8 weeks. We obtained somewhat better clinical results with oral ofloxacin, but the relapse rate was still 15% after 4 weeks (1). No relationship between in vitro susceptibility and relapse was apparent. Quinolones and macrolides might still be useful as components in multidrug therapy for brucellosis, since they show good anti-Brucella activity in compartments where the pH is ≥7.0, such as the serum. Streptomycin likewise loses activity against brucellae at pH 5.0 (Table 1) but still is useful in combination therapy for brucellosis (4). We therefore tested azithromycin and ofloxacin combined with rifampin, which has good intracellular penetration and is active at acidic pHs. Rifampin-doxycycline and streptomycin-doxycycline were tested for comparison. Acidic pHs did not compromise the synergy between rifampin and doxycycline, and although the synergy between streptomycin and doxycycline was reduced at pH 5.0, the combination remained synergistic or additive. No antagonism was seen with these established combinations. By contrast, virtually no synergy was seen with the new combinations.

Despite in vitro antagonism, we have obtained successful cures of human brucellosis with ofloxacin-rifampin, at rates comparable to those with doxycycline-rifampin (2). Ofloxacin and rifampin may achieve their highest anti-Brucellaactivities at different sites in vivo, perhaps evading the antagonism seen in vitro. Moreover, intracellular killing of brucellae by lysosome-tropic antibiotics such as macrolides may be augmented by host factors, and National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards breakpoints may not be appropriate to intracellular pathogens. The azithromycin-plus-rifampin combination has not been evaluated in vivo but may deserve study in animals, considering the poor correlation between in vivo and in vitro data for other combinations. Nevertheless, based on the present results, there is little reason to discard established regimens.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

D.M.L. is grateful to the British Council for supporting a Link Program between Hacettepe University and The London Hospital Medical College, where he worked at the time of this study. This program financed the visits during which this study was partly undertaken.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 17 September 1998.
    • Returned for modification 7 January 1999.
    • Accepted 20 February 1999.
  • Copyright © 1999 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Akalin H.,
    2. Ünal S.,
    3. Gür D.,
    4. Baykal M.
    Ofloxacin in the treatment of brucellosis. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 1990 1990 326 328 (Special issue: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Quinolones, Vancouver, Canada, 1990.)
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Akova M.,
    2. Uzun Ö.,
    3. Akalin H. E.,
    4. Hayran M.,
    5. Ünal S.,
    6. Gür D.
    Quinolones in treatment of human brucellosis: comparative trial of ofloxacin-rifampin versus doxycycline-rifampin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 37 1993 1831 1834
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Al-Sibai M. B.,
    2. Halim M. A.,
    3. El-Shaker M. M.,
    4. Khan B. A.,
    5. Quadri S. M. H.
    Efficacy of ciprofloxacin for treatment of Brucella melitensis infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 36 1992 150 152
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ariza J.,
    2. Gudiol F.,
    3. Pallares R.,
    4. Viladrich P. F.,
    5. Rufi G.,
    6. Corredoira J.,
    7. Miravitlles M. R.
    Treatment of human brucellosis with doxycycline plus rifampin or doxycycline plus streptomycin. A randomized double-blind study. Ann. Intern. Med. 117 1992 25 30
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Chow A. W.,
    2. Wong J.,
    3. Bartlett K. H.
    Synergistic interactions of ciprofloxacin and extended-spectrum beta-lactams or aminoglycosides against multiply drug-resistant Pseudomonas maltophilia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 32 1988 782 784
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Domingo S.,
    2. Gastearena I.,
    3. Vitas A. I.,
    4. Lopez-Goni I.,
    5. Dios-Vieitez C.,
    6. Diaz R.
    Comparative activity of azithromycin and doxycycline against Brucella spp. infection in mice. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 36 1995 647 656
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Garcia-Rodriguez J. A.,
    2. Sanchez J. E. G.,
    3. Trujillano I.
    Lack of effective bactericidal activity of new quinolones against Brucella spp. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 35 1991 756 759
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Kornfeld S.,
    2. Mellman I.
    The biogenesis of lysosomes. Annu. Rev. Cell Biol. 5 1989 483 525
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lang R.,
    2. Rubinstein E.
    Quinolones for the treatment of brucellosis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 29 1992 357 363
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Eighth informational supplement. NCCLS document M100-S8 18 1998 National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Wayne, Pa
  11. 11.↵
    1. Peer E. J.,
    2. Clavijo E.,
    3. Nogales M. C.,
    4. Garcia Luque I. G.
    Interaction of aminoglycosides and cephalosporins against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Correlation between interaction index and killing curve. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 22 1988 175 183
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Quadri S. M.,
    2. Halim M. A.,
    3. Ueno Y.,
    4. Abumustafa F. M.,
    5. Postle A. G.
    Antibacterial activity of azithromycin against Brucella melitensis. Chemotherapy (Basel) 41 1995 253 256
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Young E. J.
    An overview of human brucellosis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 21 1995 283 290
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
In Vitro Activities of Antibiotics Alone and in Combination against Brucella melitensis at Neutral and Acidic pHs
Murat Akova, Deniz Gür, David M. Livermore, Tanil Kocagöz, H. Erdal Akalin
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy May 1999, 43 (5) 1298-1300; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.43.5.1298

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
In Vitro Activities of Antibiotics Alone and in Combination against Brucella melitensis at Neutral and Acidic pHs
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
In Vitro Activities of Antibiotics Alone and in Combination against Brucella melitensis at Neutral and Acidic pHs
Murat Akova, Deniz Gür, David M. Livermore, Tanil Kocagöz, H. Erdal Akalin
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy May 1999, 43 (5) 1298-1300; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.43.5.1298
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

azithromycin
Brucella melitensis
doxycycline
Drug Therapy, Combination
quinolones
rifampin
streptomycin

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596