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 JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • 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
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
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 JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Bacteriology

Is Streptococcus pyogenes Resistant or Susceptible to Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole?

Asha C. Bowen, Rachael A. Lilliebridge, Steven Y. C. Tong, Robert W. Baird, Peter Ward, Malcolm I. McDonald, Bart J. Currie, Jonathan R. Carapetis
Asha C. Bowen
aMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
bRoyal Darwin Hospital, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachael A. Lilliebridge
aMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven Y. C. Tong
aMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
bRoyal Darwin Hospital, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert W. Baird
bRoyal Darwin Hospital, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Ward
dMicrobiology Department, Austin Pathology, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Malcolm I. McDonald
cJames Cook University, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bart J. Currie
aMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
bRoyal Darwin Hospital, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan R. Carapetis
aMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
eTelethon Institute for Child Health Research, Centre for Child Health Research, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02195-12
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Streptococcus pyogenes is commonly believed to be resistant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT), resulting in reservations about using SXT for skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) where S. pyogenes is involved. S. pyogenes' in vitro susceptibility to SXT depends on the medium's thymidine content. Thymidine allows S. pyogenes to bypass the sulfur-mediated inhibition of folate metabolism and, historically, has resulted in apparently reduced susceptibility of S. pyogenes to sulfur antibacterials. The low thymidine concentration in Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) is now regulated. We explored S. pyogenes susceptibility to SXT on various media. Using two sets of 100 clinical S. pyogenes isolates, we tested for susceptibility using SXT Etests on MHA containing defibrinated horse blood and 20 mg/liter β-NAD (MHF), MHA with sheep blood (MHS), MHA alone, MHA with horse blood (MHBA), and MHA with lysed horse blood (MHLHBA). European Committee on Antibacterial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints defined susceptibility (MIC, ≤1 mg/liter) and resistance (MIC, >2 mg/liter). In study 1, 99% of S. pyogenes isolates were susceptible to SXT on MHA, MHBA, and MHLHBA, with geometric mean MICs of 0.04, 0.04, and 0.05 mg/liter, respectively. In study 2, all 100 S. pyogenes isolates were susceptible to SXT on MHF, MHS, MHA, and MHLHBA with geometric mean MICs of 0.07, 0.16, 0.07, and 0.09 mg/liter, respectively. This study confirms the in vitro susceptibility of S. pyogenes to SXT, providing support for the use of SXT for SSTIs. A clinical trial using SXT for impetigo is ongoing.

INTRODUCTION

Streptococcus pyogenes was one of the first bacterial infections to be treated with sulfur antibacterials in the 1930s (16) and proved to be clinically effective in the treatment and prophylaxis of S. pyogenes infections (10, 16, 23, 29). However, when sulfadiazine, an early short-acting sulfur antibacterial, was used in mass prophylaxis programs to prevent S. pyogenes tonsillitis and acute rheumatic fever (ARF) in military recruits in the 1940s, the clinical efficacy of this antibacterial was limited due to the presumed development of resistance (13, 15, 27, 31, 42) among some strains. Initial antibacterial susceptibility testing (AST) of S. pyogenes to sulfur antibacterials using a broth dilution method demonstrated that some strains were resistant (25, 53); however, AST was in its infancy and no standardized reference methods existed at that time. This early experience resulted in the belief that trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT) is ineffective against S. pyogenes, and its use has been discouraged in clinical practice for decades (35).

Subsequent antibacterial susceptibility experiments showed apparently reduced susceptibility of S. pyogenes (and other bacteria) (6, 40) to the sulfur antibacterials due to antagonism of the inhibition of folate metabolism. Harper and Cawston discovered an inhibitory substance in 1945, eventually identified as thymidine, which was interfering with the ability of sulfur antibacterials to kill the organism (25). Because the activity of SXT is determined by the antibacterial's ability to deprive an organism of folate coenzymes (7), there is a direct relationship between the thymidine levels in culture media and SXT resistance (11). High thymidine content in agar provides an exogenous substrate which can be used by an organism to maintain folate metabolism and hence appear resistant to SXT. In early studies, most culture media contained sufficient thymidine to antagonize the inhibitory effects of sulfur drugs and hence produced resistant results when this class of antibacterials was tested (6).

Notably, lysed horse blood was found to contain the enzyme thymidine phosphorylase, which neutralized thymidine (46) and overcame this effect (21, 25). No other mammalian blood contains thymidine phosphorylase (21). However, the addition of lysed horse blood was not recommended for AST, despite several authors (5, 6, 21, 54) advising supplementation with lysed horse blood for any medium used to test sulfur antibacterial susceptibility if the thymidine concentration was above 0.03 μg/ml (5) (below which inhibition does not occur). In this context, the notion that S. pyogenes was resistant to sulfur antibacterials perpetuated.

SXT was introduced in 1968 (3, 28, 43) and has since become one of the most widely used antibacterials in the world. However, recommendations against the use of sulfur antibacterials, including SXT, for S. pyogenes infections continue in the belief that the organism is intrinsically resistant (33, 47, 51). Two studies (33, 51) have reported S. pyogenes uniformly resistant to SXT, but this was prior to thymidine content standardization in Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) and was on agar containing sheep blood. There have also been reported clinical failures in the use of this agent in eradicating S. pyogenes from nasopharyngeal carriage (30). However, other centers have demonstrated full in vitro susceptibility of S. pyogenes to SXT (14, 22, 36, 54). Since 2006, when the thymidine content of MHA became strictly regulated by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) to maintain a low level of thymidine and hence avoid inhibition (M6-A2 protocol) (9), it has no longer been necessary to add lysed horse blood to the medium for AST. However, current methods do use agar supplemented with mammalian blood.

Given the prevailing view that caution should be exercised in using SXT for infections involving S. pyogenes and the paucity of clinical data of SXT efficacy against S. pyogenes, we sought to confirm or disprove the notion that S. pyogenes is resistant to SXT in vitro on various antibacterial susceptibility testing media. Coinfection of S. pyogenes with Staphylococcus aureus in skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) and the rising prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) provide added stimulus to explore the utility of SXT in the treatment of these infections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Swab collection and identification of S. pyogenes.Skin, throat, or nose swabs were collected using a rayon tipped cotton swab (Copan, Interpath Services, Melbourne, Australia). In study 1, swabs were plated on horse blood agar (HBA) (Oxoid, Basingstoke, United Kingdom) and HBA containing colistin and nalidixic acid (HBA + CNA) (Oxoid) within 48 h of collection. In study 2, swabs were stored in skim milk-tryptone-glucose-glycerol broth (STGGB) at −70°C prior to plating on the above-described media. Incubation was at 37°C for 16 h in 5% CO2. β-Hemolytic colonies were identified morphologically, and confirmation of S. pyogenes was with the Lancefield streptococcal grouping test for group A (Oxoid). Isolates were stored in glycerol at −70°C until subsequent replating for AST.

Selection of isolates. (i) Study 1.We began by exploring the issue with a preliminary study of 100 skin and throat isolates of S. pyogenes collected from 3 remote Australian Aboriginal communities between 2003 and 2005 during surveillance studies (39). We used an SXT Etest strip (bioMérieux, France) on 3 different agars: MHA, MHA supplemented with horse blood (MHBA), and MHA supplemented with lysed horse blood (MHLHBA) (Oxoid). Interpretation was based on European Committee on Antibacterial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints (20) released in 2010.

(ii) Study 2.The Skin Sore Trial is a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) comparing benzathine penicillin G (BPG) treatment of impetigo (the standard of care) with oral SXT. The first 100 S. pyogenes isolates from skin and nasal swabs from participants in the Skin Sore Trial were used in study 2. The participants were 3 months to 13 years old and were from 4 remote Aboriginal communities of the Top End of the Northern Territory, Australia, recruited in 2010. Swabs were collected from the anterior nares and at least 2 purulent or crusted sores from all children. Swabs were collected from skin sores on day 0 (pretreatment), day 2 (midtreatment), and day 7 (completion of treatment). Consent for participation and collection of specimens was obtained from the guardian or parent of each participant. The study was approved by the Northern Territory Top End Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 09/08) and has been registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12609000858291).

Antibacterial susceptibility testing methods and agar used.The two internationally accredited, standardized methods for AST (Table 1) are the CLSI (8) and EUCAST (19) methods. CLSI does not provide reference breakpoints for S. pyogenes susceptibility to SXT and recommends the use of Mueller-Hinton agar (MHA) supplemented with 5% sheep blood for testing the susceptibility of S. pyogenes to other antibacterials. In contrast, EUCAST has released breakpoints for the disk diffusion method and MIC on appropriate media. The medium recommended for Streptococcus groups A, B, C, and G is MHA supplemented with 5% defibrinated horse blood + 20 mg/liter β-NAD. This agar is commonly referred to as MHF (http://www.eucast.org, accessed 25 July 2012).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Antibiotic susceptibility testing methods and agar used

Two experimental agars were also used for susceptibility testing. MHA is routinely used in a number of other antibacterial susceptibility tests not involving β-hemolytic streptococci. MHLHBA was used to explore the hypothesis based on historical literature that the lysing of horse blood releases thymidine phosphorylase which breaks thymidine down to thymine.

Using the EUCAST breakpoints (20), with an MIC of ≤1 mg/liter as sensitive and an MIC of >2 mg/liter as resistant, and an SXT Etest to perform antibacterial susceptibility, these studies compared the various media that have been recommended for AST. The Etest interpretation is based on the trimethoprim component of the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole combination, in a ratio of 1:19. The EUCAST methodology using the Etest was chosen due to the availability of published breakpoints; however, due to the widespread use of CLSI, the medium upon which this organism is tested was also used and results obtained were referenced to the EUCAST breakpoints.

Antibacterial susceptibility testing.Single colonies were isolated from frozen stocks following overnight incubation on HBA in 5% CO2 at 37°C. Susceptibility testing for SXT was performed using a 0.5 McFarland suspension to create a confluent lawn inoculum and then applying an SXT Etest as per the manufacturer's instructions. Plates were read by 2 readers following incubation in 5% CO2 at 35°C for 16 to 20 h. The MIC was recorded where the inhibition ellipse intersected the scale. Where a difference in results of more than 2 gradations was noted between the 2 readers, a repeat test was performed with a fresh subculture of S. pyogenes. As SXT is a bacteriostatic antibacterial, this mode of action can alter the appearance of an MIC endpoint, resulting in hazy zones. Where haze was present, both the 80% and 100% points of ellipse intersection were recorded. A penicillin, erythromycin, and clindamycin disk diffusion test according to CLSI guidelines (8) was conducted concurrently on all 100 strains in study 2.

Quality control.In study 2, for every 20 S. pyogenes clinical isolates, a control strain of S. pyogenes (ATCC 19615) was also tested on the 4 agars and found to be susceptible. Quality control of the SXT Etests was performed throughout the study using Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922) on MHA and Streptococcus pneumoniae (ATCC 49619) on MHS. The reference ranges for each organism were achieved, namely, 0.064 to 0.25 μg/ml for E. coli and 0.125 to 1 μg/ml for S. pneumoniae.

STATA version 12.0 (STATAcorp, College Station, TX) was used to determine the geometric means. The data were logarithmically transformed to a normal distribution, and paired t tests were used to determine the difference between agars for studies 1 and 2.

RESULTS

Study 1.On MHBA and MHLHBA, S. pyogenes isolates from the skin (n = 36) and throat (n = 64) were uniformly susceptible to SXT (Table 2). Ninety-nine isolates tested on MHA were susceptible to SXT (Table 2). The single isolate which appeared resistant on MHA was susceptible on both MHBA and MHLHBA.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

SXT Etest susceptibility results for study 1

There was no statistically significant difference between the geometric mean MIC measurements on MHA and MHBA. However, isolates tested on both MHA and MHBA had lower MICs than isolates tested on MHLHBA (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Difference in MIC in study 1a

Study 2.One hundred isolates of S. pyogenes from 43 children were included in this analysis. S. pyogenes isolates utilized were from sores (n = 98) and the anterior nares (n = 2). The majority of isolates (76%) were from day 0 (before antibacterial treatment); 19% were from day 2, and 5% were from day 7. Sixty-four of the swabs from which S. pyogenes was identified also cultured S. aureus. Of these, 14% were methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and 86% were methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA).

All 100 isolates of S. pyogenes were susceptible to SXT on all agars by both readers (Table 4). Interrater reliability was excellent, with 96% of all MIC readings within ±1 MIC gradation. In view of this, all analyses were done on results from reader 1. All 100 S. pyogenes isolates were also susceptible to penicillin, erythromycin, and clindamycin.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 4

SXT Etest susceptibility results for study 2

The geometric means were similar for MHA, MHBA, and MHLHBA (Table 4). MHS had a higher geometric mean MIC than the other media. This was statistically significant, with isolates tested on MHS having higher geometric mean MICs than the same isolates tested on all other agars (Table 5). Despite the higher MICs, all isolates tested on MHS were still susceptible to SXT. There was no difference in MIC between isolates tested on MHA and those tested on MHF. As in study 1, isolates tested on MHA had lower MICs than the same isolates tested on MHLHBA. This was also found for isolates tested on MHF (Table 5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 5

Difference in MIC in study 2a

Ongoing surveillance with in vitro susceptibility testing is needed to monitor for changes in rates of SXT resistance with increased use of SXT. To date, we have tested 910 S. pyogenes isolates cultured from impetigo and anterior nares of children randomized in the Skin Sore Trial on MHF using an SXT Etest according to EUCAST guidelines. Only 8 (0.9%) have been found to be resistant, with MICs of >2 mg/liter (unpublished data). These results are consistent with those reported from the EUCAST group.

DISCUSSION

Although SXT is no longer commonly recommended for treatment of respiratory tract infections, it remains one of the most widely used and cheapest antibacterials in the world and is an important option for treatment of SSTI, where S. pyogenes and S. aureus are often copathogens (4, 12, 24, 34). In the era of rising MRSA prevalence, antibacterials that are active against both bacteria are highly valued.

Impetigo is a significant therapeutic problem in remote communities in the Northern Territory of Australia (37, 49, 50), with community-associated MRSA having become highly prevalent in this region (50). Impetigo is also an endemic problem in many less-developed countries (41, 45), and MRSA is likely to be on the rise in these contexts also (50). In patients with MRSA and S. pyogenes coinfection, finding a single oral agent that is effective, affordable, and easy to use would be a significant advance. Penicillins and cephalosporins are no longer an option for MRSA treatment. In the Northern Territory context, clindamycin is not an option, with up to 22% of MRSA isolates resistant (49), aside from its poor palatability in young children and the difficulties in maintaining adherence to a thrice-daily regimen. Tetracyclines are not recommended in children under 8 years of age (17), and linezolid is currently too expensive for the empirical treatment of such a common childhood condition. SXT, which is cheap, widely available, and well tolerated and requires only twice-daily dosing, is a potential single agent for treatment of both MRSA and S. pyogenes infections. Several studies have confirmed the ongoing susceptibility of S. aureus to SXT in this region of Australia (38, 49).

The breakpoints utilized for this study were defined by EUCAST using data collated from a wide range of sources on more than 2,500 isolates of S. pyogenes tested for susceptibility to SXT using a variety of methods (32). Of the 2,596 tests reported from multiple sources, geographical areas, and time periods, 2,559 were susceptible to SXT of ≤1 mg/liter and 23 isolates were resistant (0.9%) (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, data from the EUCAST MIC distribution website, http://mic.eucast.org, last accessed 18 September 2012). On disk diffusion testing for S. pyogenes using SXT disks in a ratio of 1:19, a zone size of ≥18 mm indicates susceptibility and <15 mm indicates resistance. Using these breakpoints, a total of 358 tests were performed, with 5 confirmed resistant strains (1.4%) (http://mic.eucast.org, last accessed 18 September 2012). This can be contrasted with results found in U.S.-based literature using the CLSI methods, where AST for S. pyogenes is performed on agar supplemented with defibrinated sheep blood and SXT is not routinely tested, as S. pyogenes strains are considered universally resistant (51). Defibrinated sheep blood is utilized, as the hemolytic reactions of β-hemolytic streptococci on blood agar containing sheep blood are deemed “true” (1).

The in vitro results reported in the current study confirming the susceptibility of S. pyogenes to SXT suggest that treatment of SSTI with SXT is worth considering. Our current RCT to assess the noninferiority of SXT to the standard treatment with benzathine penicillin G (BPG) for impetigo will provide the necessary clinical evidence to inform guidelines. It is based on a pilot study of 13 participants which indicated that both BPG and SXT were efficacious in healing impetigo (48). There is one study published comparing these agents for S. pyogenes infection in tonsillitis, which reported a 70% treatment efficacy for SXT compared to 88% for penicillin, a non-statistically significant difference (52).

The infrequent reports of susceptibility of S. pyogenes to SXT demonstrate resistance rates ranging from 0% to 100% depending on which medium and testing conditions are used (Table 6). Although the variation in results may relate to the particular strains included or the local prescribing patterns of SXT, it is most likely related to the methodology of testing. All of the studies reporting high resistance rates either used media known to have high concentrations of thymidine or did not provide details of the medium used. As standardization to ensure a low thymidine concentration of Mueller-Hinton medium was introduced only in 2006, it is likely that, unless low-thymidine media were specified (2, 14, 18, 22, 26, 44, 54), studies in publications prior to this may not have controlled for thymidine content.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 6

Summary of published results of S. pyogenes in vitro susceptibility to SXTa

Alongside this, S. pyogenes has remained 100% susceptible in vitro to penicillin. Hence there has been no pressing need to understand SXT susceptibility as an alternative antibacterial in the public health approach to treatment of S. pyogenes infections. However, this is changing in the context of rising MRSA rates for SSTI.

Our results show that testing of S. pyogenes for susceptibility to SXT on MHS gives a higher MIC than all of the other agars, although the organism remains in the susceptible range. This could possibly be due to the availability of thymidine or other inhibitory substances in this medium. However, thymidine concentrations of the various media utilized were not assessed. Alternatively, the absence of an enzyme to reduce the inhibition in sheep blood compared to horse blood may be the explanation.

The original paper describing the identification of the Harper-Cawston factor (25) as thymidine (21) reports an interesting observation that our study has partially demonstrated. Only lysed horse blood contains thymidine phosphorylase to convert thymidine to thymine and hence overcome the inhibition of folate metabolism that occurs in the presence of thymidine. No other mammalian blood contains this enzyme, which is a possible reason for the higher MICs reported on MHS than on those agars containing horse blood. In the original paper, the presence of thymidine at concentrations of 1.6 μg/ml was sufficient to completely prevent inhibition by the drugs. The inclusion of lysed horse blood restored the inhibition. This has also been shown by Coll et al. (11). However, the MIC of S. pyogenes isolates tested on MHLHBA was higher than those of isolates tested on MHF (study 2), MHA (studies 1 and 2), or MHBA (study 1), which suggests other factors at play.

A limitation of this study is the reliance upon a single method for susceptibility testing, the Etest, which is a commercially derived method. Further work using broth or agar dilution methods would add to our understanding of the susceptibility of S. pyogenes to SXT. As shown in Table 6, when these additional methods have been assessed, the susceptibility of S. pyogenes ranges from 0% (54) to 3.3% (18) resistant, similarly low resistances to those reported in this study.

Reading MICs for SXT can be challenging due to haze. In particular, only faint growth of S. pyogenes was achieved on MHA (due to the absence of blood), and this made reading endpoints more difficult. MHLHBA and MHF had problems similar to those of MHA with respect to haze. Despite this in study 2, the MICs were reproducible between readers, with a high level of interrater reliability within 1 MIC gradation.

Conclusions.The widespread belief that SXT is ineffective for S. pyogenes infections because of inherent antimicrobial resistance is a fallacy due to technical limitations in laboratory methodology: namely, the use of media containing high concentrations of thymidine, which inhibits the action of sulfur antibacterials. When media containing low concentrations of thymidine and/or high concentrations of the enzyme thymidine phosphorylase are used, resistance rates are low in most cases, although this must be monitored over time and may vary with local epidemiology and antibacterial prescribing patterns. This study provides justification to proceed to clinical trials of SXT for S. pyogenes infections. Corroboration with clinical trial data may convince clinicians that SXT can safely and appropriately be used for infections involving S. pyogenes. The Skin Sore Trial will answer the clinical applicability of this current in vitro study. In the era of rising MRSA prevalence, more clinical trials of SXT for treatment of SSTI, where S. pyogenes and S. aureus are frequently copathogens, are needed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work of the research assistants in study 1 and the Skin Sore Trial team (Irene O'Meara, Jane Nelson, Tammy Fernandes, Melita McKinnon, Dianne Halliday, Colleen Mitchell, Valerie Coomber, and Christine Francais) in recruiting participants for study 2 has made this research possible. Study scientists who carried out this work include R.A.L., P.W., and Vanya Hampton. Mark Chatfield provided assistance with the statistical analysis. We also acknowledge all of the participants and their families who have participated in the Skin Sore Trial and Rheumatic Heart Disease studies.

This work was supported through a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant (545234) on which A.C.B., S.Y.C.T., M.I.M., B.J.C., and J.R.C. are all investigators. A.C.B. is the recipient of a NHMRC scholarship for Ph.D. research (605845) as well as an Australian Academy of Sciences Douglas and Lola Douglas scholarship. S.Y.C.T. is the recipient of a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (605829).

We have no conflicts of interest to declare.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 19 August 2012.
    • Returned for modification 10 September 2012.
    • Accepted 4 October 2012.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 10 October 2012.
  • Copyright © 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Anand C,
    2. Gordon R,
    3. Shaw H,
    4. Fonseca K,
    5. Olsen M
    . 2000. Pig and goat blood as substitutes for sheep blood in blood-supplemented agar media. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38:591–594.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bergner-Rabinowitz S,
    2. Davies AM
    . 1970. Sensitivity of Streptococcus pyogenes types to tetracycline and other antibiotics. Isr. J. Med. Sci. 6:393–398.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bernstein LS
    . 1982. Combination of trimethoprim with sulfonamides other than sulfamethoxazole. Rev. Infect. Dis. 4:411–418.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Brook I,
    2. Frazier EH,
    3. Yeager JK
    . 1997. Microbiology of nonbullous impetigo. Pediatr. Dermatol. 14:192–195.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Brumfitt W,
    2. Hamilton-Miller JMT,
    3. Kosmidis J
    . 1973. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole: the present position. J. Infect. Dis. 128:S778–S791.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Bushby SR
    . 1973. Sensitivity testing with trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole. Med. J. Aust. 1(Suppl):10–18.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bushby SR
    . 1973. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole: in vitro microbiological aspects. J. Infect. Dis. 128(Suppl):442–462.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    CLSI. 2011. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: twenty-first informational supplement M100-S21, p 1–172. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  9. 9.↵
    CLSI. 2006. Protocols for evaluating dehydrated Mueller-Hinton agar: approved standard—2nd ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  10. 10.↵
    1. Coburn AF
    . 1944. The prevention of respiratory tract bacterial infections by sulfadiazine prophylaxis in the United States navy. JAMA 126:88–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Coll PF,
    2. Ausina VR,
    3. Vernis JV,
    4. Mirelis BO,
    5. Prats GP
    . 1984. Exogenous thymidine and reversal of the inhibitory effect of sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim on streptococci. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. 3:424–426.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Dajani AS,
    2. Ferrieri P,
    3. Wannamaker LW
    . 1972. Natural history of impetigo. II. Etiologic agents and bacterial interactions. J. Clin. Invest. 51:2863–2871.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Damrosch D
    . 1946. Chemoprophylaxis and sulfonamide resistant Streptococci. JAMA 130:124–128.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Darrell JH,
    2. Garrod LP,
    3. Waterworth PM
    . 1968. Trimethoprim: laboratory and clinical studies. J. Clin. Pathol. 21:202–209.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Delameter ED,
    2. Jennings R,
    3. Wallace AW
    . 1946. Preliminary report of an outbreak of Streptococcal disease caused by a sulfadiazine resistant group A, type 17 hemolytic Streptococcus. J. Infect. Dis. 78:118–127.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 15a.
    1. Dhanda V,
    2. et al
    . 2011. Invasive group A streptococcus (GAS) from North India during 2007–2010: surveillance and antibacterial susceptibility, abstr 5, p 18. Abstr. XVIII Lancefield Symp., Palermo, Italy.
  17. 16.↵
    1. Domagk G
    . 1935. Ein Beitrag zur Chemotherapie der Bakteriellen Infektionen. Dtsch. Med. Wochenschr. 61:250–253.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 16a.
    1. Dumre SP,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Asymptomatic throat carriage rate and antimicrobial resistance pattern of Streptococcus pyogenes in Nepalese school children. Kathmandu Univ. Med. J. 7:392–396.
    OpenUrl
  19. 17.↵
    1. Eisen DT
    . 2010. Tetracycline, p 843–894. In Grayson ML, et al. (ed), The use of antibacterials, sixth ed, vol 1. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  20. 18.↵
    1. Eliopoulos GM,
    2. Wennersten CB
    . 1997. In vitro activity of trimethoprim alone compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and other antimicrobials against bacterial species associated with upper respiratory tract infections. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 29:33–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 19.↵
    EUCAST. 29 June 2012, posting date. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing. http://www.eucast.org/antimicrobial_susceptibility_testing/disk_diffusion_methodology/.
  22. 20.↵
    EUCAST. 5 January 2011, posting date. EUCAST MIC and zone diameter breakpoint tables. http://www.eucast.org/antimicrobial_susceptibility_testing/breakpoints/.
  23. 21.↵
    1. Ferone R,
    2. Bushby SR,
    3. Burchall JJ,
    4. Moore WD,
    5. Smith D
    . 1975. Identification of Harper-Cawston factor as thymidine phosphorylase and removal from media of substances interfering with susceptibility testing to sulfonamides and diaminopyrimidines. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 7:91–98.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 22.↵
    1. Finland M,
    2. Garner C,
    3. Wilcox C,
    4. Sabath LD
    . 1976. Susceptibility of beta-hemolytic streptococci to 65 antibacterial agents. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 9:11–19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 23.↵
    1. Freis ED
    . 1944. The treatment of tonsillitis with small doses of sulfonamides. JAMA 126:93–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 24.↵
    1. Geria AN,
    2. Schwartz RA
    . 2010. Impetigo update: new challenges in the era of methicillin resistance. Cutis 85:65–70.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 25.↵
    1. Harper GJ,
    2. Cawston WC
    . 1945. The in-vitro determination of the sulphonamide sensitivity of bacteria. J. Pathol. Bacteriol. 57:59–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 26.↵
    1. Hartman TL,
    2. Hoes JS
    . 1949. The occurrence of a type five sulfadiazine resistant hemolytic streptococcus. J. Pediatr. 34:331–337.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 27.↵
    1. Hartman TL,
    2. Weinstein L
    . 1948. The problem of sulfonamide-resistant hemolytic streptococci. N. Engl. J. Med. 238:560–563.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 28.↵
    1. Hitchings GH
    . 1973. Mechanism of action of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. I. J. Infect. Dis. 128(Suppl):433–436.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 29.↵
    1. Holbrook WC
    . 1944. The Army Air Forces Rheumatic Fever Control Program. JAMA 126:84–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 30.↵
    1. Hoskins TW,
    2. Bernstein LS
    . 1981. Trimethoprim/sulphadiazine compared with penicillin V in the treatment of streptococcal throat infections. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 8:495–496.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. 31.↵
    1. Johnson RD,
    2. Hartman TL
    . 1947. Sulfadiazine resistant streptococcal infections in a civilian community. J. Clin. Invest. 26:325–328.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 32.↵
    1. Kahlmeter G,
    2. et al
    . 2003. European harmonization of MIC breakpoints for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 52:145–148.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 33.↵
    1. Kaplan EL,
    2. Johnson DR,
    3. Del Rosario MC,
    4. Horn DL
    . 1999. Susceptibility of group A beta-hemolytic streptococci to thirteen antibiotics: examination of 301 strains isolated in the United States between 1994 and 1997. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 18:1069–1072.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 34.↵
    1. Koning S,
    2. et al
    . 2012. Interventions for impetigo. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 1:CD003261. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003261.pub3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 34a.
    1. Lakshmy A,
    2. Malhotra VL,
    3. Dutta R
    . 2011. Antibacterial resistance pattern of Streptococcus pyogenes isolated from clinical samples, abstr 36, p 23. Abstr. XVIII Lancefield Symp., Palermo, Italy.
  38. 35.↵
    1. Laurell GL,
    2. et al
    . 1968. Streptococcal and staphylococcal infections. World Health Organization technical report series no. 394. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  39. 36.↵
    1. Liebowitz LD,
    2. Slabbert M,
    3. Huisamen A
    . 2003. National surveillance programme on susceptibility patterns of respiratory pathogens in South Africa: moxifloxacin compared with eight other antimicrobial agents. J. Clin. Pathol. 56:344–347.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 37.↵
    1. Maguire GP,
    2. Arthur AD,
    3. Boustead PJ,
    4. Dwyer B,
    5. Currie BJ
    . 1998. Clinical experience and outcomes of community-acquired and nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a northern Australian hospital. J. Hosp. Infect. 38:273–281.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 38.↵
    1. McDonald M,
    2. et al
    . 2006. Recovering streptococci from the throat, a practical alternative to direct plating in remote tropical communities. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:547–552.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 39.↵
    1. McDonald MI,
    2. et al
    . 2006. Low rates of streptococcal pharyngitis and high rates of pyoderma in Australian Aboriginal communities where acute rheumatic fever is hyperendemic. Clin. Infect. Dis. 43:683–689.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. 40.↵
    1. Najjar A,
    2. Murray BE
    . 1987. Failure to demonstrate a consistent in vitro bactericidal effect of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole against enterococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 31:808–810.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 41.↵
    1. Okafor OO,
    2. Akinbami FO,
    3. Orimadegun AE,
    4. Okafor CM,
    5. Ogunbiyi AO
    . 2011. Prevalence of dermatological lesions in hospitalized children at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 14:287–292.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 42.↵
    1. Roberg N
    . 1946. An epidemic caused by a sulfadiazine resistant strain of the streptococcus hemolyticus (group A, type 17). J. Infect. Dis. 78:135–146.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 43.↵
    1. Rubin RH,
    2. Swartz MN
    . 1980. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. N. Engl. J. Med. 303:426–432.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 44.↵
    1. Schultz I,
    2. Frank PF
    . 1958. The prophylactic use of sulfamethoxypyridazine (kynex) during a streptococcal epidemic. Am. J. Med. Sci. 236:779–785.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 45.↵
    1. Steer AC,
    2. et al
    . 2009. High burden of impetigo and scabies in a tropical country. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 3:e467. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000467.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 46.↵
    1. Stokes A,
    2. Lacey RW
    . 1978. Effect of thymidine on activity of trimethoprim and sulphamethoxazole. J. Clin. Pathol. 31:165–171.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 47.↵
    1. Swedberg G,
    2. Ringertz S,
    3. Skold O
    . 1998. Sulfonamide resistance in Streptococcus pyogenes is associated with differences in the amino acid sequence of its chromosomal dihydropteroate synthase. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 42:1062–1067.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 48.↵
    1. Tong SY,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Trimethopim-sulfamethoxazole compared with benzathine penicillin for treatment of impetigo in Aboriginal children: a pilot randomised controlled trial. J. Paediatr. Child Health 46:131–133.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 49.↵
    1. Tong SY,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Community-associated strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus in Indigenous Northern Australia: epidemiology and outcomes. J. Infect. Dis. 199:1461–1470.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 50.↵
    1. Tong SY,
    2. McDonald MI,
    3. Holt DC,
    4. Currie BJ
    . 2008. Global implications of the emergence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Indigenous populations. Clin. Infect. Dis. 46:1871–1878.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. 51.↵
    1. Traub WH,
    2. Leonhard B
    . 1997. Comparative susceptibility of clinical group A, B, C, F, and G beta-hemolytic Streptococcal isolates to 24 antimicrobial drugs. Chemotherapy 43:10–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. 52.↵
    1. Trickett PCD,
    2. Mogabgab PW
    . 1973. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus penicillin G in the treatment of group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal pharyngitis and tonsillitis. J. Infect. Dis. 128:S693–S695.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. 53.↵
    1. Wilson AT
    . 1945. Method for testing in vitro resistance of group A hemolytic streptococci to sulfonamides. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 58:130–133.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. 53a.
    1. Wilson AT
    . 1954. A simplified method for testing sulfonamide resistance of group A streptococci. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 43:280–285.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 54.↵
    1. Yourassowsky E,
    2. Vanderlinden MP,
    3. Schoutens E
    . 1974. Sensitivity of Streptococcus pyogenes to sulphamethoxazole, trimethoprim, and cotrimoxazole. J. Clin. Pathol. 27:897–901.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Is Streptococcus pyogenes Resistant or Susceptible to Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole?
Asha C. Bowen, Rachael A. Lilliebridge, Steven Y. C. Tong, Robert W. Baird, Peter Ward, Malcolm I. McDonald, Bart J. Currie, Jonathan R. Carapetis
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Nov 2012, 50 (12) 4067-4072; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02195-12

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 Journal of Clinical Microbiology 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.
Is Streptococcus pyogenes Resistant or Susceptible to Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Is Streptococcus pyogenes Resistant or Susceptible to Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole?
Asha C. Bowen, Rachael A. Lilliebridge, Steven Y. C. Tong, Robert W. Baird, Peter Ward, Malcolm I. McDonald, Bart J. Currie, Jonathan R. Carapetis
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Nov 2012, 50 (12) 4067-4072; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02195-12
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@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: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X