4.7 Article

High community faecal carriage rates of CTX-M ESBL-producing Escherichia coli in a specific population group in Birmingham, UK

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 67, Issue 5, Pages 1108-1113

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dks018

Keywords

CTX-M-15; ST131; ethnicity; clonal spread

Funding

  1. HPA
  2. Wyeth
  3. Astra-Zeneca
  4. Pfizer
  5. Novacta
  6. MSD
  7. Novartis
  8. Eumedica

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To determine the proportion of E. coli carrying specific CTX-M extended-spectrum -lactamase (ESBL) genotypes in a community population of East and North Birmingham. General practice and outpatient stool samples from 732 individuals submitted for examination for faecal pathogens in 2010 were screened for ESBL-producing E. coli using chromogenic agar. Multiplex PCR, denaturing HPLC, DNA sequencing and PFGE were used to determine the CTX-M genotype and clonal subtype. Isolates from people were assigned to oEurope', oMiddle East/South Asia' (MESA) or ouncategorized' groups using software to determine probable global origin based on the subjects full name. Prevalence of CTX-M carriage in the sample population was 11.3. There was a statistically significant difference (P0.001) between carriage in the Europe group (8.1) and the MESA group (22.8). There was also a higher rate of carriage of CTX-M-15-producing E. coli (P0.001) in MESA subjects. The high community carriage rate and the significant difference in carriage between the Europe and MESA subjects may have important consequences for therapy. If the rising trend in carriage of bacteria producing ESBLs continues, guidelines for empirical therapy for patients presenting from the community may need to be modified. The findings also raise the concern that the pattern and routes of spread of CTX-M-15 may be replicated in the future by broader-spectrum -lactamases, such as New Delhi metallo--lactamase (oNDM-1').

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available