4.6 Article

A snapshot of antimicrobial resistance in Mexico. Results from 47 centers from 20 states during a six-month period

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209865

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim We aimed to assess the resistance rates of antimicrobial-resistant, in bacterial pathogens of epidemiological importance in 47 Mexican centers. Material and methods In this retrospective study, we included a stratified sample of 47 centers, covering 20 Mexican states. Selected isolates considered as potential causatives of disease collected over a 6-month period were included. Laboratories employed their usual methods to perform microbiological studies. The results were deposited into a database and analyzed with the WHONET 5.6 software. Results In this 6-month study, a total of 22,943 strains were included. Regarding Gram-negatives, carbapenem resistance was detected in <= 3% in Escherichia coli, 12.5% in Klebsiella sp. and Enterobacter sp., and up to 40% in Pseudomonas aeruginosa; in the latter, the resistance rate for piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP) was as high as 19.1%. In Acinetobactersp., resistance rates for cefepime, ciprofloxacin, meropenem, and TZP were higher than 50%. Regarding Gram-positives, methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was as high as 21.4%, and vancomycin (VAN) resistance reached up to 21% in Enterococcus faecium. Acinetobactersp. presented the highest multidrug resistance (53%) followed by Klebsiella sp. (22.6%) and E. coli (19.4%). Conclusion The multidrug resistance of Acinetobactersp., Klebsiella sp. and E. coli and the carbapenem resistance in specific groups of enterobacteria deserve special attention in Mexico. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and MRSA are common in our hospitals. Our results present valuable information for the implementation of measures to control drug resistance.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available