Identification of Burkholderia spp. in the clinical microbiology laboratory: comparison of conventional and molecular methods

Cystic fibrosis (CF) predisposes patients to bacterial colonization and infection of the lower airways. Several species belonging to the genus Burkholderia are potential CF-related pathogens, but microbiological identification may be complicated. This situation is not in the least due to the poorly defined taxonomic status of these bacteria, and further validation of the available diagnostic assays is required. A total of 114 geographically diverse bacterial isolates, previously identified in reference laboratories as Burkholderia cepacia (n = 51), B. gladioli (n = 14), Ralstonia pickettii (n = 6), B. multivorans (n = 2), Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (n = 3), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 11), were collected from environmental, clinical, and reference sources. In addition, 27 clinical isolates putatively identified as Burkholderia spp. were recovered from the sputum of Dutch CF patients. All isolates were used to evaluate the accuracy of two selective growth media, four systems for biochemical identification (API 20NE, Vitek GNI, Vitek NFC, and MicroScan), and three different PCR-based assays. The PCR assays amplify different parts of the ribosomal DNA operon, either alone or in combination with cleavage by various restriction enzymes (PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism [RFLP] analysis). The best system for the biochemical identification of B. cepacia appeared to be the API 20NE test. None of the biochemical assays successfully grouped the B. gladioli strains. The PCR-RFLP method appeared to be the optimal method for accurate nucleic acid-mediated identification of the different Burkholderia spp. With this method, B. gladioli was also reliably classified in a separate group. For the laboratory diagnosis of B. cepacia, we recommend parallel cultures on blood agar medium and selective agar plates. Further identification of colonies with a Burkholderia phenotype should be performed with the API 20NE test. For final confirmation of species identities, PCR amplification of the small-subunit rRNA gene followed by RFLP analysis with various enzymes is recommended

Fusidic acid cream in the treatment of impetigo in general practice: double blind randomised placebo controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that fusidic acid would not increase the treatment effect of disinfecting with povidone-iodine alone in children with impetigo. DESIGN: Randomised placebo controlled trial. SETTING: General practices in Greater Rotterdam. PARTICIPANTS: 184 children aged 0-12 years with impetigo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical cure and bacterial cure after one week. RESULTS: After one week of treatment 55% of the patients in the fusidic acid group were clinically cured compared with 13% in the placebo group (odds ratio 12.6, 95% confidence interval 5.0 to 31.5, number needed to treat 2.3). After two weeks and four weeks the differences in cure rates between the two groups had become smaller. More children in the placebo group were non-compliant (12 v 5) and received extra antibiotic treatment (11 v 3), and more children in the placebo group reported adverse effects (19 v 7). Staphylococcus aureus was found in 96% of the positive cultures; no strains were resistant to fusidic acid. CONCLUSIONS: Fusidic acid is much more effective than placebo (when both are given in combination with povidone-iodine shampoo) in the treatment of impetigo. Because of the low rate of cure and high rate of adverse events in the placebo group, the value of povidone-iodine in impetigo can be questioned