4.6 Article

Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Enterobacter cloacae and Klebsiella aerogenes Strains Isolated from Clinical Specimens: A Twenty-Year Surveillance Study

Journal

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12040775

Keywords

antibiotic resistance; Enterobacter cloacae; Klebsiella aerogenes; epidemiology; fosfomycin; surveillance study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A retrospective analysis of antimicrobial data from Enterobacter spp. strains isolated over 20 years (2000-2019) revealed a significant decrease in the use of aminoglycosides and fluoroquinolones, but no significant changes in other antimicrobial agents. There was, however, a significant increase in resistance to fosfomycin, possibly due to uncontrolled and improper usage.
We retrospectively analyzed the antimicrobial data of Enterobacter spp. strains isolated from hospitalized subjects and outpatients over 20 years (2000-2019). A total of 2277 non-duplicate Enterobacter spp. isolates, 1037 from outpatients (45%) and 1240 from hospitalized subjects (55%), were retrieved. Most of samples are infections of the urinary tract. Considering Enterobacter aerogenes, now classified as Klebsiella aerogenes, and Enterobacter cloacae, representing more than 90% of all isolates, except for aminoglycosides and fluroquinolones, which showed significant antibiotic decreasing trends (p < 0.01), none of the other antimicrobial agents tested showed significant changes in both groups (p > 0.05). Conversely, there was a significant increasing resistance trend for fosfomycin (p < 0.01), among both community and hospital-related subjects, most probably owing to uncontrolled and improper usage. Surveillance studies on antibiotic resistance at the local and regional level are required to detect new resistance mechanisms, reduce inappropriate antimicrobial consumption, and increase the focus on antimicrobial stewardship.

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