STUDY DESIGN: The MICs for 135 clinical isolates of N. gonorrhoeae were determined by a modified Kirby-Bauer method recommended by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards against penicillin, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, norfloxacin, tetracycline, kanamycin, spectinomycin, and azithromycin. The MIC of azithromycin was determined by both the E-test and agar dilution method. All tests were done simultaneously.
RESULTS: The MIC of azithromycin to all 135 isolates ranged from 0.078 to 0.25 microgram/ml with the agar dilution method and from 0.016 to 0.50 microgram/ml with the E-test. The MIC50 and MIC90 of azithromycin were 0.064 microgram/ml and 0.125 microgram/ml, respectively, by the agar dilution method, whereas they are slightly higher by the E-test method. Seventy-six of the isolates were beta-lactamase producers and 69 were high-level tetracycline-resistant N. gonorrhoeae. There was no difference in the MIC50 and MIC90 of azithromycin in these groups of isolates. The percentage agreement within the acceptable +/-1 log2 dilution difference between MICs obtained by E-test and those obtained by the agar dilution method was 97.8%.
CONCLUSIONS: Azithromycin has a very good in vitro antigonococcal activity, and the E-test is a reliable method to determine the MIC of azithromycin against N. gonorrhoeae.
Methods: A cross-sectional study, using a validated 23-item self-administered questionnaire, was conducted among pharmacists from 11 public hospitals in the State of Selangor, Malaysia, from December 2016 to January 2017. All public hospital pharmacists (n=432) were invited to participate in the survey. A 5-point Likert scale was employed in the questionnaire; the perception section was scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) while the practice section was scored from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used to analyse data.
Results: Of the 432 pharmacists surveyed, 199 responded, giving a response rate of 46.0%. The majority of the respondents agreed (n=190, 95.5%) that the AMS programme improves patient care at their hospitals (median=5; IQR=1). Slightly less than half of the respondents indicated that a local antibiotic guideline was established in their hospitals (median=3, IQR=2.5), and had taken part in antimicrobial awareness campaigns to promote optimal use of antimicrobials in hospitals (median=3, IQR=1).
Conclusions: Overall, the perception and practices of the surveyed hospital pharmacists towards AMS programme were positive. National antibiotic guidelines, which take into consideration local antimicrobial resistance patterns, should be used fully to improve antimicrobial usage and to reduce practice variation. Collaboration among healthcare professionals should be strengthened to minimise the unfavourable consequences of unintended use of antimicrobial agents while optimising clinical outcomes.