Fidsa Jamal Ahmad Wadi Al Ramahi, M Said, Rasmieh Abu Kwaik, W. Jamal, Deema Al Jammal, Nisreen Al Radaidah, Amin A. Aqel
{"title":"约旦多药耐药医院病原菌对新型抗菌药物的敏感性","authors":"Fidsa Jamal Ahmad Wadi Al Ramahi, M Said, Rasmieh Abu Kwaik, W. Jamal, Deema Al Jammal, Nisreen Al Radaidah, Amin A. Aqel","doi":"10.3823/852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background \nTo study resistance rates of multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDR) for new Cephalosporines before their widespread use in Jordan. \nMethods \nDuring September 2019 - May 2020, MDR-bacteria were prospectively collected from microbiology laboratories of three hospitals, susceptibility of the extended-spectrum β-lactamases-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL), K. pneumoniae-carbapenemases strains (KPC), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa (CRPa), carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAb), and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) were tested. Demographic details for patients were identified. Antimicrobials evaluated were ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, and ceftobiprole medocaril. \nResults \nNon-duplicate 263 MDR clinical isolates were collected from sterile sites; ESBL (128), P. aeruginosa (57), MRSA (37), KPC (22), A. baumannii (11), and CRE (n = 8). The age was dominated by the older age group (Age > 64, Pearson R = 0.985, R2 = 0.969, P = 0.000). Males were 143 and females 107 (P < 0.000). There were (194) isolate from the wards and (55) were from the ICUs. Sources were urine (96), blood (36), soft tissues (49), abdomen (24), URT (14), and osteo-skeletal (12). Clinical diagnoses were: UTI (90). Bacteremia (36), SSTI (45), IAI (23), pneumonia (17), URTI (13), osteomyelitis (11), and diabetic foot (6). The susceptibility of the ESBL-producing bacteria was 100% for meropenem, 99% for ceftazidime-avibactam, and 90% for ceftolozane/tazobactam. P. aeruginosa was, 73% for ceftazidime-avibactam, 62% susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam, 62% for meropenem, and 45% to ceftobiprole. CRE was 38% susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam and KPC 15%, while ceftolozane-tazobactam susceptibility was zero, and 14% for CRE, and 0% for Ceftobiprole Medocaril. A. baumannii was 13% susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem 9%, and 2% for ceftolozane/tazobactam \nConclusion \nCeftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam may be useful alternatives for the treatment of ESBL-producers and P. aeruginosa, though the MDR-bacteria demonstrated some resistance to the newly introduced agents before their widespread use in the country.","PeriodicalId":22518,"journal":{"name":"The International Arabic Journal of Antimicrobial Agents","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Susceptibility of multidrug-resistant nosocomial pathogens for the new antimicrobial agents in Jordan\",\"authors\":\"Fidsa Jamal Ahmad Wadi Al Ramahi, M Said, Rasmieh Abu Kwaik, W. Jamal, Deema Al Jammal, Nisreen Al Radaidah, Amin A. Aqel\",\"doi\":\"10.3823/852\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background \\nTo study resistance rates of multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDR) for new Cephalosporines before their widespread use in Jordan. \\nMethods \\nDuring September 2019 - May 2020, MDR-bacteria were prospectively collected from microbiology laboratories of three hospitals, susceptibility of the extended-spectrum β-lactamases-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL), K. pneumoniae-carbapenemases strains (KPC), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa (CRPa), carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAb), and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) were tested. Demographic details for patients were identified. Antimicrobials evaluated were ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, and ceftobiprole medocaril. \\nResults \\nNon-duplicate 263 MDR clinical isolates were collected from sterile sites; ESBL (128), P. aeruginosa (57), MRSA (37), KPC (22), A. baumannii (11), and CRE (n = 8). The age was dominated by the older age group (Age > 64, Pearson R = 0.985, R2 = 0.969, P = 0.000). Males were 143 and females 107 (P < 0.000). There were (194) isolate from the wards and (55) were from the ICUs. Sources were urine (96), blood (36), soft tissues (49), abdomen (24), URT (14), and osteo-skeletal (12). Clinical diagnoses were: UTI (90). Bacteremia (36), SSTI (45), IAI (23), pneumonia (17), URTI (13), osteomyelitis (11), and diabetic foot (6). The susceptibility of the ESBL-producing bacteria was 100% for meropenem, 99% for ceftazidime-avibactam, and 90% for ceftolozane/tazobactam. P. aeruginosa was, 73% for ceftazidime-avibactam, 62% susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam, 62% for meropenem, and 45% to ceftobiprole. CRE was 38% susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam and KPC 15%, while ceftolozane-tazobactam susceptibility was zero, and 14% for CRE, and 0% for Ceftobiprole Medocaril. A. baumannii was 13% susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem 9%, and 2% for ceftolozane/tazobactam \\nConclusion \\nCeftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam may be useful alternatives for the treatment of ESBL-producers and P. aeruginosa, though the MDR-bacteria demonstrated some resistance to the newly introduced agents before their widespread use in the country.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International Arabic Journal of Antimicrobial Agents\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International Arabic Journal of Antimicrobial Agents\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3823/852\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Arabic Journal of Antimicrobial Agents","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3823/852","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
背景研究新型头孢菌素在约旦广泛应用前的耐多药菌(MDR)耐药率。方法2019年9月- 2020年5月,前瞻性采集3家医院微生物实验室耐多药菌,检测产β-内酰胺酶的广谱肠杆菌科(ESBL)、肺炎克雷伯菌-碳青霉烯酶菌株(KPC)、耐碳青霉烯类肠杆菌科(CRE)、耐碳青霉烯类铜绿假单胞菌(CRPa)、耐碳青霉烯类鲍曼假单胞菌(CRAb)和耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)的药敏。确定了患者的人口统计细节。评价的抗菌剂有头孢他啶-阿维巴坦、头孢奥唑烷-他唑巴坦和头孢双prole medocaril。结果无菌区临床分离得到非重复MDR菌株263株;ESBL(128例)、P. aeruginosa(57例)、MRSA(37例)、KPC(22例)、鲍曼a.p umannii(11例)、CRE(8例),年龄以年龄> 64岁年龄组为主,Pearson R = 0.985, R2 = 0.969, P = 0.000。男性143只,女性107只(P < 0.000)。其中病房分离194例,icu分离55例。来源为尿液(96)、血液(36)、软组织(49)、腹部(24)、上呼吸道(14)和骨-骨骼(12)。临床诊断为:尿路感染(90)。菌血症(36例)、SSTI(45例)、IAI(23例)、肺炎(17例)、尿路感染(13例)、骨髓炎(11例)、糖尿病足(6例)。产esbls细菌对美罗培南的敏感性为100%,对头孢他啶-阿维巴坦的敏感性为99%,对头孢氯氮唑/他唑巴坦的敏感性为90%。铜绿假单胞菌对头孢他啶-阿维巴坦的敏感性为73%,对头孢甲苯/他唑巴坦的敏感性为62%,对美罗培南的敏感性为62%,对头孢双普罗的敏感性为45%。CRE对头孢他啶-阿维巴坦的敏感性为38%,KPC为15%,而头孢奥唑坦的敏感性为零,CRE为14%,Ceftobiprole Medocaril为0%。结论头孢他啶-阿维巴坦和头孢托ozane/他唑巴坦可能是治疗esbls产生者和P. aeruginosa的有效替代药物,尽管耐多药细菌在国内广泛使用前对新引进的药物表现出一定的耐药性。
Susceptibility of multidrug-resistant nosocomial pathogens for the new antimicrobial agents in Jordan
Background
To study resistance rates of multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDR) for new Cephalosporines before their widespread use in Jordan.
Methods
During September 2019 - May 2020, MDR-bacteria were prospectively collected from microbiology laboratories of three hospitals, susceptibility of the extended-spectrum β-lactamases-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL), K. pneumoniae-carbapenemases strains (KPC), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa (CRPa), carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAb), and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) were tested. Demographic details for patients were identified. Antimicrobials evaluated were ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, and ceftobiprole medocaril.
Results
Non-duplicate 263 MDR clinical isolates were collected from sterile sites; ESBL (128), P. aeruginosa (57), MRSA (37), KPC (22), A. baumannii (11), and CRE (n = 8). The age was dominated by the older age group (Age > 64, Pearson R = 0.985, R2 = 0.969, P = 0.000). Males were 143 and females 107 (P < 0.000). There were (194) isolate from the wards and (55) were from the ICUs. Sources were urine (96), blood (36), soft tissues (49), abdomen (24), URT (14), and osteo-skeletal (12). Clinical diagnoses were: UTI (90). Bacteremia (36), SSTI (45), IAI (23), pneumonia (17), URTI (13), osteomyelitis (11), and diabetic foot (6). The susceptibility of the ESBL-producing bacteria was 100% for meropenem, 99% for ceftazidime-avibactam, and 90% for ceftolozane/tazobactam. P. aeruginosa was, 73% for ceftazidime-avibactam, 62% susceptible to ceftolozane/tazobactam, 62% for meropenem, and 45% to ceftobiprole. CRE was 38% susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam and KPC 15%, while ceftolozane-tazobactam susceptibility was zero, and 14% for CRE, and 0% for Ceftobiprole Medocaril. A. baumannii was 13% susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem 9%, and 2% for ceftolozane/tazobactam
Conclusion
Ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane/tazobactam may be useful alternatives for the treatment of ESBL-producers and P. aeruginosa, though the MDR-bacteria demonstrated some resistance to the newly introduced agents before their widespread use in the country.