4.5 Article

A global priority list of the TOp TEn resistant Microorganisms (TOTEM) study at intensive care: a prioritization exercise based on multi-criteria decision analysis

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-018-3428-y

关键词

Multidrug-resistant bacteria; Infection control; Colonization; Prevention; Research; Antimicrobials; Intensive care; Sepsis

资金

  1. Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
  2. Observership Programme from ESCMID, Basel, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a global priority pathogen list (PPL) of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria. Our current objective was to provide global expert ranking of the most serious MDR bacteria present at intensive care units (ICU) that have become a threat in clinical practice. A proposal addressing a PPL for ICU, arising from the WHO Global PPL, was developed. Based on the supporting data, the pathogens were grouped in three priority tiers: critical, high, and medium. A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was used to identify the priority tiers. After MCDA, mortality, treatability, and cost of therapy were of highest concern (scores of 19/20, 19/20, and 15/20, respectively) while dealing with PPL, followed by healthcare burden and resistance prevalence. Carbapenem-resistant (CR) Acinetobacter baumannii, carbapenemase-expressing Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPC), and MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa were identified as critical organisms. High-risk organisms were represented by CR Pseudomonas aeruginosa, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) Enterobacteriaceae. Finally, ESBL Serratia marcescens, vancomycin-resistant Enterococci, and TMP-SMX-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia were identified as medium priority. We conclude that education, investigation, funding, and development of new antimicrobials for ICU organisms should focus on carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative organisms.

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

4.5
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