In vitro antibacterial activity of locally sourced natural honey against wound-derived staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and klebsiella pneumoniae at Kiruddu national referral hospital, Uganda
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51168/vnfjp514Cuvinte cheie:
Uganda, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, wound infection, agar well diffusion, antibacterial activity, Natural honeyRezumat
Background:
Antimicrobial resistance among common wound pathogens has increased interest in locally available complementary antibacterial agents. Natural honey is traditionally used in wound care, but evidence against contemporary Ugandan clinical isolates remains limited.
Objective:
To determine the in vitro antibacterial activity of a locally sourced natural honey sample at varying concentrations against wound-derived Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from Kiruddu National Referral Hospital.
Methods:
We conducted a laboratory experimental study using bacterial isolates recovered cross-sectionally from wound specimens. We processed 43 wound specimens and recovered 14 target isolates. Honey sourced from Matugga, Wakiso District, was tested at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% v/v using agar well diffusion. Each isolate was tested in triplicate. Meropenem was used as the positive control for E. coli and K. pneumoniae and gentamicin for S. aureus; sterile distilled water was the negative control.
Results:
Fourteen of 43 specimens (32.6%) yielded target organisms: E. coli 6/14 (42.9%), S. aureus 4/14 (28.6%), and K. pneumoniae 4/14 (28.6%). Mean inhibition zones increased from 10.22 to 17.32 mm for E. coli, 10.75 to 19.10 mm for K. pneumoniae, and 15.58 to 21.68 mm for S. aureus between 25% and 100% honey. Concentration significantly affected inhibition within each species (p<0.05). Between-species differences were significant at 25%, 50%, and 75% but not at 100%. S. aureus was significantly more susceptible than E. coli at 25–75%.
Conclusion:
The locally sourced honey demonstrated concentration-dependent in vitro antibacterial activity against all three wound-derived pathogens. These findings justify larger laboratory and clinical studies but do not establish clinical efficacy.
Referințe
1. Ding X, Tang Q, Xu Z, et al. Challenges and innovations in treating chronic and acute wound infections: From basic science to clinical practice. Burns & Trauma. 2022;10:tkac014. https://doi.org/10.1093/burnst/tkac014
2. Haque M, Sartelli M, McKimm J, Abu Bakar MB. Healthcare-associated infections - an overview. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:2321-2333. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S177247
3. Lai PS, Bebell LM, Meney C, Valeri L, White MC. Epidemiology of antibiotic-resistant wound infections from six countries in Africa. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;2(Suppl 4):e000475. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000475
4. Murray CJL, Ikuta KS, Sharara F, et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2022;399:629-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0
5. Jung L, Kiwanuka J, Mbabazi L, et al. A case for routine microbial diagnostics: antimicrobial susceptibility testing in post-traumatic wound infections at a Ugandan tertiary care hospital. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023;3:e0001880. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001880
6. Chang D, Sharma L, Dela Cruz CS, Zhang D. Clinical epidemiology, risk factors, and control strategies of Klebsiella pneumoniae infection. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:750662. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.750662
7. Tong SYC, Davis JS, Eichenberger E, Holland TL, Fowler VG. Staphylococcus aureus infections: epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28:603-661. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00134-14
8. Nteziyaremye J, Oromcan BW, Kasozi J, Duluga S, Mabonga H. Clinical history, knowledge, and antibiotic use practices among adult patients with cellulitis attending clinical services at Kiruddu Referral Hospital in Kampala. Student's Journal of Health Research Africa. 2025;6(12):13-13. https://doi.org/10.51168/sjhrafrica.v6i12.2148
9. Almasaudi S. The antibacterial activities of honey. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021;28:2188-2196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.10.017
10. Nolan V, Harrison J, Cox J. Dissecting the antimicrobial composition of honey. Antibiotics. 2019;8:251. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8040251
11. Morroni G, Álvarez-Suárez JM, Brenciani A, et al. Comparison of the antimicrobial activities of four honeys from three countries. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1378. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01378
12. Mudenda S, Hikaambo CNA, Chabalenge B, et al. Antibacterial activities of honey against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2023;12(3):06-13. https://doi.org/10.22271/phyto.2023.v12.i3a.14655
13. Obey JK, Ngeiywa MM, Lehesvaara M, et al. Antimicrobial activity of commercial organic honeys against clinical isolates of human pathogenic bacteria. Org Agric. 2022;12:267-277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-022-00389-z
14. Leus IV, Adamiak J, Chandar B, et al. Functional diversity of Gram-negative permeability barriers reflected in antibacterial activities and intracellular accumulation of antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2023;67:e01377. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01377-22
15. Mabonga H, Nalumaga PP, Byarugaba F, Bazira J, Tuhamize B. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of bacteria isolated from infected wounds at Mbale Regional Referral Hospital, Uganda. Microbes and Infectious Diseases. 2026. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5858549/v1
Descărcări
Publicat
Număr
Secțiune
Licență
Copyright (c) 2026 Najjemba Joyce, Mr. Kasozi James, Mr. Mabonga Habert
TAceastă lucrare este licențiată în temeiul Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
