4.5 Article

High Frequency of Antimicrobial Drug Resistance of Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli in Infants in Peru

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE
Volume 81, Issue 2, Pages 296-301

Publisher

AMER SOC TROP MED & HYGIENE
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.2009.81.296

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Agencia Espanola de Cooperacion Internacional [A/4892/06]
  2. Agencia Catalana de Cooperacio at Desenvolupament, Generalitat de Catalunya [U2006]
  3. Centre de Coopcracio per al Desenvolupament. Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
  4. National Institutes of Health [PHS-FIC 1K01TW007405, PHS-NICHD R01-HD051716]
  5. Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias, Spain [CP05/0130]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a prospective passive diarrhea Surveillance cohort study of 1,034 infants of low socioeconomic communities in Lima, Peru. we determined the prevalence and antimicrobial drug susceptibility of the diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. The prevalence of diarrheagenic E. coli was 29% (161 of 557) in children with gastroenteritis and 30% (58 of 195) in the control group without diarrhea. The most common E. coli pathogens in diarrhea were enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC) (14%), enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC) (7%), diffusely adherent E. coli (DAEC) (4%), and enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) (4%). Diarrheagenic E. coli as it group exhibited high levels of antimicrobial drug resistance ill diarrheal cases to ampicillin (85%), contrimoxazole (79%), tetracycline (65%). and nalidixic acid (28%). Among, individual E. coli groups in patients with diarrhea, DAEC and EAEC exhibited significant higher frequencies of resistance to ampicillin, contrimoxazole, tetracycline and nalidixic acid than EPEC and ETEC. Antimicrobial drug resistance to ampicillin and cotrimoxazole were more frequent in E coli isolated from diarrheal samples than controls, which reflected greater antibiotic exposure ill patients with gastroenteritis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available