4.6 Article

Risk Factors for Community-Acquired Urinary Tract Infections Caused by ESBL-Producing Enterobacteriaceae -A Case-Control Study in a Low Prevalence Country

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069581

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Community-acquired urinary tract infection (CA-UTI) is the most common infection caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae, but the clinical epidemiology of these infections in low prevalence countries is largely unknown. A population based case-control study was conducted to assess risk factors for CA-UTI caused by ESBL-producing E. coli or K. pneumoniae. The study was carried out in a source population in Eastern Norway, a country with a low prevalence of infections caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. The study population comprised 100 cases and 190 controls with CA-UTI caused by ESBL-producing and non-ESBL-producing E. coli or K. pneumoniae, respectively. The following independent risk factors of ESBL-positive UTIs were identified: Travel to Asia, The Middle East or Africa either during the past six weeks (Odds ratio (OR) = 21; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.5-97) or during the past 6 weeks to 24 months (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-4.4), recent use of fluoroquinolones (OR = 16; 95% CI: 3.2-80) and beta-lactams (except mecillinam) (OR = 5.0; 95% CI: 2.1-12), diabetes mellitus (OR = 3.2; 95% CI: 1.0-11) and recreational freshwater swimming the past year (OR = 2.1; 95% CI: 1.0-4.0). Factors associated with decreased risk were increasing number of fish meals per week (OR = 0.68 per fish meal; 95% CI: 0.51-0.90) and age (OR = 0.89 per 5 year increase; 95% CI: 0.82-0.97). In conclusion, we have identified risk factors that elucidate mechanisms and routes for dissemination of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae in a low prevalence country, which can be used to guide appropriate treatment of CA-UTI and targeted infection control measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据