4.5 Article

High Burden of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae Bacteremia in Older Adults: A Seven-Year Study in Two Rural Thai Provinces

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC TROP MED & HYGIENE
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0394

关键词

-

资金

  1. Global Alliance Vaccine and Immunization (GAVI) based at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
  2. Global Disease Detection (GDD) Program of the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA
  3. Faculty of Tropical Medicine Fund (2013), Mahidol University, Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bloodstream infection surveillance conducted from 2008 to 2014 in all 20 hospitals in Sa Kaeo and Nakhon Phanom provinces, Thailand, allowed us to look at disease burden, antibiotic susceptibilities, and recurrent infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Of 97,832 blood specimens, 3,338 were positive for E. coli and 1,086 for K. pneumoniae. The proportion of E. coli isolates producing ESBL significantly increased from 19% to 22% in 2008-2010 to approximately 30% from 2011 to 2014 (P-value for trend = 0.02), whereas ESBL production among K. pneumoniae cases was 27.4% with no significant trend over time. Incidence of community-onset ESBL-producing E. coli increased from 5.4 per 100,000 population in 2008 to 12.8 in 2014, with the highest rates among persons aged >= 70 years at 79 cases per 100,000 persons in 2014. From 2008 to 2014, community-onset ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae incidence was 2.7 per 100,000, with a rate of 12.9 among those aged >= 70 years. Although most (93.6% of E. coli and 87.6% of K. pneumoniae) infections were community- onset, hospital-onset infections were twice as likely to be ESBL. Population-based surveillance, as described, is vital to accurately monitor emergence and trends in antimicrobial resistance, and in guiding the development of rational antimicrobial therapy recommendations.

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