Peer Review Article | Open Access | Published 9th July 2006
Burkholderia (Pseudomonas) cepacia - A brief profile for the pharmaceutical microbiologist
Nigel Halls, IAGT Ltd, Ovingdean, Brighton UK | EJPPS | 112 (2006) | Cite this article https://doi.org/10.37521/ejpps.11203 | Click to download pdf
Abstract
There is a substantial amount of evidence, including recent fatalities, to support the view that the
pharmaceutical industry should be concerned over the potential contamination of non-sterile dosage
forms by Burkholderia cepacia. It is not one of the micro-organisms named in the pharmacopoeias
against recommendations to use selective media to confirm absence from non-sterile products, and
few, if any, pharmaceutical quality control laboratories ever attempt its selective isolation. It is
suggested that because of this the occurrence of Burkholderia cepacia in pharmaceutical products
may well be under reported. Nonetheless, selective media have been developed for isolation of
Burkholderia cepacia from clinical specimens and it is suggested that there is enough information
available from these other media to allow development of suitable selective media for pharmaceutical
applications.
Key words: Burkholderia cepacia , Pseudomonas cepacia , Respiratory disease , Selective isolation,
Objectionable micro-organisms, Commercially available media
​
1. Introduction
​
Burkholderia ( Pseudomonas) cepacia was first isolated and described I as a phytopathogen
responsible for a bacterial rot of onions. Over recent years the nomenclature of this group of
organisms has changed. Formerly known as Pseudomonas cepacia, the species was moved to the new
genus, Burkholderia, in 1992.
Burkholderia cepacia is a Gram-negative rod I .6-3.211m in length. It is a strict aerobe and a
chemo-organotroph with an optimum growth temperature of 30 to 35°C. It is found in soil, water and
on plants. It can survive on the skin for up to 60 minutes, on a moist surface for up to one week,
and in biofilms in water for years. Nonetheless, Butler et al2 expressed the view that it is an
exaggeration to describe it as widely distributed or ubiquitous in nature.
Burkholderia cepacia is inherently resistant to multiple antibiotics and can metabolise diverse
organic substrates3. The organism's unusually broad metabolic capabilities enable it to survive and
proliferate in water-based environments.
In the early 1970s, it was found to be a human pathogen causing mild respiratory disease and
urinary tract infections. In the 1980s, it was confirmed to cause life threatening pulmonary
infections in cystic fibrosis patients. The complications caused by Burkholdheria cepacia have
a mortality rate of 80%. This species and Pseudomonas aeruginosa enhance each other in their
effects in cystic fibrosis patients to cause major problems.
In 1971, Burkholdheria cepacia was reported as the causative organism of "foot rot" in U.S. troops
on swamp training exercises in northern Florida; it was also isolated from troops serving in
Vietnam4.
The US Center for Disease Control5 is of the opinion that Burkholderia cepacia poses little medical
risk to healthy people. However, people who have certain health problems like weakened immune
systems or chronic lung diseases, particularly cystic fibrosis, are susceptible to infection with
potentially fatal consequences.
In agricultural microbiology, Burkholderia cepacia's ability to metabolise almost anything
available to it, even the chlorinated hydrocarbons6 which are commonly found in commercial
pesticides and herbicides have led to its consideration as an environmental bioremediation
agent. A strain of Burkholderia cepacia has also been developed as a seed and root inoculant, which
can suppress fungal growth on conifer seedlings7. Due to the human health problems that
Burkholderia cepacia can cause, cmTently the US Center for Disease Control and the US Environmental
Protection Agency have declared a moratorium against Burkholderia cepacia pesticides and
herbicides.
​
Concern to the pharmaceutical industry
Micro-organisms are comparatively rarely named in FDA's website list of recalls (Enforcement
Reports). However, there are 45 instances applying to pharmaceuticals recalled from the US market
since 1992. Thirteen of these applying to pharmaceuticals and three applying to cosmetics (Table 1)
name Burkholderia cepacia. No other named micro-organism has been associated with recalls as frequently as Burkholderia cepacia.
It is of interest that the 1998 recall of cetyl pyridinium chloride mouthwash arose as a result of 74 patients at two hospitals in Arizona having been found to have respiratory tract cultures positive for Burkholderia cepacia in the period August 1996-June 19988. All of these patients had been mechanically ventilated and all had received routine oral care which included swabbing with the mouthwash. Cultures of unopened bottles of the mouthwash grew Burkholderia cepacia. None of the infected patients had medical conditions typically associated with infection with Burkholderia cepacia ( eg., cystic fibrosis or chronic granulomatous disease).
Table 1 Requirements for effective cleanroom garments

In August/September 2004 there was a Class 1 recall of sublingual probes used for monitoring tissue carbon dioxide levels. Each probe was packaged in a metal canister filled with a nonsterile buffered saline solution. The recall was initiated following hospital reports of infections and the finding of Burkholderia cepacia in the
buffered saline solution in which the probes were packaged. Two of the infected patients died - one from heart failure and one from pneumonia. None of the patients had cystic fibrosis or chronic granulomatous disease.
There is therefore a substantial amount of evidence, including recent fatalities, to support the view that the pharmaceutical industry should be concerned over the potential contamination of non-sterile dosage forms by Burkholderia cepacia. The root of the problem is that this species can metabolise and increase to potentially
infectious levels even in the presence of preservatives such as benzalkonium chloride. Subsequent to infection, the problem of Burkholderia cepacia is exacerbated by the organism's multiple resistance to antibiotics.
The evidence also indicates that concern to the pharmaceutical industry from Burkholderia cepacia should not be restricted to dosage forms likely to be used solely in the treatment of patients with severe respiratory diseases.


Table 2 summarises the "objectionability" of Burkholderia cepacia if recovered from various pharmaceutical manufacturing scenarios.
Selective isolation of Burkholderia cepacia
USP describes methods for selective isolation of four micro-organisms in General Chapter <61> Microbial Limit Tests. The methods described are for Staphylococcus
aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp.
PhEur describes methods for selective isolation of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and "Enterobacteria and certain other Gramnegative micro-organisms" in Section 2.6.13
Tests for Microbial Contamination.
​
There are no methods described for specific selective isolation of Burkholderia cepacia although this species would be embraced by the PhEur test for "Enterobacteria and certain other Gramnegative micro-organisms" .
USP does not mandate limits being applied to all products for all four microorganisms for which methods are described. Halls9 indicates that in USP XXII, of 83 monographs for dosage forms and 26 for starting materials, drug substances, etc. only two required absence of all four of the micro-organisms for which methods of
selective isolation are described.
​
PhEur under Section 5 .1.4 Microbiological Quality categorises pharmaceutical products. The majority of
non-sterile products manufactured from active ingredients which are themselves products of chemical synthesis fall under categories 2 (topical, respiratory and transdermal patches) and 3a (preparations for oral and rectal administration). Category 2 products are recommended to have limits set against absence of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and "Enterobacteria and certain other Gramnegative
micro-organisms". Category 3a products are recommended to have limits set only against absence of Escherichia coli.
​
It is paradoxical that many pharmaceutical quality control laboratories persist in testing all non-sterile products for absence of Salmonella spp. which has rarely if ever in modern times been identified as a problem for pharmaceuticals other than those manufactured from natural ingredients, but few, if any, ever attempt
selective isolation of Burkholderia cepacia which has been the main microbial cause of recalls and has even resulted in fatalities as recently as 2004.
Although Coenye et al 10 have expressed the view that poor laboratory proficiency in the identification of this
organism still prevails, numerous selective media for Burkholderia cepacia have been developed .
Five published media and two commercially available media (Oxoid Ltd, Wade Rd, Basingstoke, Hants RG24
8PW, and MAST Group Ltd , Merseyside L20 lEA) are summarised in Table 3 (also see Figures 1 and 2).
It should be remembered that most of these media (Table 3) have, in the main , been developed for isolation
of Burkholderia cepacia from infected sputum where mixed populations of bacteria in fairly high concentrations are to be expected, hence the inclusion of various antibiotics to inhibit the growth of other
organisms present in greater numbers and therefore to favour recovery of Burkholderia cepacia. This is of course not the situation in most pharmaceutical applications where primary controls generally ensure that numbers of contaminants are very low. Most of the published surveys comparing these media relate to recovery from clinical specimens and are really not pertinent to how they might pe1form in relation to recovery from pharmaceuticals.
Only one of the media, that referred to as TB-T11 , is synthetic, all of the others are complex mostly due to the
inclusion of some form of peptone and/or yeast extract. TB-T11 was developed for recovery of Burkholderia cepacia from soil and plant material , as was P-CAT12 .

These two media could possibly provide a bas is for development of a selective medium suitable for pharmaceutical applications but since both date from the 1980s there is likely much to be gained from considering the other more recently developed media as well. For instance, on balance it would appear that selective recovery of Burkholderia cepacia is favoured by a slightly lowered pH. PCM13 and the two commercial media (Oxoid and MAST) have a pH of 6.2, TB-T11 and P-CAT12 have a pH in the range of 5.5 to 5.7.
​
Three of the seven media (PCM, MAST and Oxoid) contain sodium pyruvate and four contain phenol red and
crystal vio let to assist in the differentiation of Burkholderia cepacia. A recognised problem with recovery of Burkholderia cepacia is misidentification. There are reports 10 that Burkholderia cepacia is, in hospital laboratories, not uncommonly misidentified as Burkholderia gladioli, Ralstonia pickettii, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Pseudomonas spp, Alcaligenes spp , Flavobacterium spp or Chryseobacterium spp. Of the commercial identification systems used most commonly in pharmaceutical control laboratories, the Vitek GNI Plus has been reported to yield higher positive predictive values for Burkholderia cepacia than the Vitek GNI or the API20NE16
.
Conclusions
1. Burkholderia cepacia is an objectionable micro organism in pharmaceutical products. It is pathogenic, metabolically versatile and resistant to antibiotics. It has been, and can be anticipated to continue to be, a significant cause of recalls of pharmaceutical products.
2. Burkholderia cepacia is not so uncommon (compared with, say, salmonellae) that it ought never to be found in pharmaceutical manufacturing environments. Whenever it is found it should prompt immediate investigative and corrective action.
3. Burkholderia cepacia is not one of the micro organisms named in the pharmacopoeias against recommendations to use selective media to confirm their absence from non-sterile products.
Nonetheless, even with high standards of both hygiene and GMP, it is more likely to occur in pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities and to contaminate products than salmonellae which is one of those organisms named in the pharmacopoeias.
4. There are selective media available for isolation of Burkholderia cepacia but most have been developed for isolation from clinical specimens. They may not be most appropriate for use in pharmaceutical situations. It is suggested that there is enough information available from these other media to allow development of suitable selective media for pharmaceutical applications.
5. In the absence of using selective media in pharmaceutical product testing and environmental monitoring, the occurrence of Burkholderia cepacia may well be under reported, with the consequent high level of its association with product recall.
.
References
01.
Burkholder W. Sour skin , a bacterial rot of onion bulbs.
Phytopathology I 950; 40: I 15-8.
02.
Butler SL, Doherty CJ, Hughes JE, Nelson JW, Govan JRW.
Burkholderia cepacia and Cystic Fibrosis: Do natural environments present a potential hazard? Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1995;33: (4) 1001 - 1004.
03.
Holmes A, Govan J, Goldstein R. Agricultural use of Burkholderia (Pseudomonas) cepacia: a threat to human health? Emerging Infectious Diseases 1998; 4: 2.
04.
Taplin D, Bassett D, Mertz P. Foot lesions associated with Pseudomonas cepacia. Lancet 1971; 1971: 568- 571 .
05.
Anon. CDC Fact Sheet March 25, 2004. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/B_cepacia.htm
06.
Sangodkar U, Chapman P, Chakrabarty A. Cloning, physical mapping and expression of chromosomal genes specifying degradation of the herbicide 2,4,5-T by Pseudomonas cepacia ACI 100. Gene 1988; 71: 267- 77.
07.
Reddy M. Status on commercial development of Burkholderia cepacia for biological control of fungal pathogens and growth enhancement of conifer seedlings for a global market. Washington: US Forest Service General Technical Report PNW 1997; Report no.389. p.235-44.
08.
Anon. Nosocomial Burkholderia cepacia infection and colonization associated with intrinsically contaminated mouthwash - Arizona,1996-1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports 1998; 47: (43) 926-928 .
09.
Halls NA. Microbial control of pharmaceuticals Jn: Encylopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology (Eds. J Swarbrick and JC Boylan). Marcel Dekker Inc: New York. 1994; Volume 9.
10.
Coenye T, Vandamme P, Govan , JRW, Lipuma JJ. Taxonomy and identification of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 200 I; 39: ( I 0) 3427-3436.
11.
Hagedorn C, Gould WD, Bardinelli TR , Gustavson DR. A selective medium for enumeration and recovery of Pseudomonas cepacia biotypes from soil . Applied and Environmental Microbiology I 987; 53: 2265-2268.
12.
Burbage DA. Sasser M. A medium selective for Pseudomonas cepacia. Phytopathology 1982; 72: 706.
13.
Gilligan PH , Gage PA , Bradshaw LM , Schidlow DY, Decicco BT. Isolation medium for the recovery of Pseudomonas cepacia from respiratory secretions of patients with cystic fibro sis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1985; 22 ( I) 5- 8.
14.
Welch DF, Muszynski MJ , Pal CH, Marcon MJ et al. Selective and differential medium for recovery of Pseudomonas cepacia from the respiratory tracts of patients with cystic fibro sis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 198; 25: (9) 1730- 1734.
15.
Henry DA, Campbell ME, LiPuma JJ , Speert DP. Identification of Burkholderia cepacia isolates from patients with cystic fibrosis and use of a simple new selective medium . Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1997; 35: 61 4-619.
16.
Shelly DB, Spilker T, Gracely EJ, Coenye T et al. Utility of commercial systems for identification of Burkholderia cepacia complex from cystic fibrosis sputum culture. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2000; 38: (8) 3 I 12-3 115.
Author Information
Corresponding Author: Nigel Halls PhD, Executive Director for Science
and Technology,
lAGT Ltd,
16 LonghiII Rd,
Ovingdean,
Brighton
BN2 7BE
www .iagtgroup.com