4.7 Article

High Rate of Acquisition but Short Duration of Carriage of Multidrug-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae After Travel to the Tropics

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 61, 期 4, 页码 593-600

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/civ333

关键词

antibiotics; carbapenemase; relative abundance; ESBL; importation

资金

  1. French Ministry of Health [AOR 11101]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (MRE) are widespread in the community, especially in tropical regions. Travelers are at risk of acquiring MRE in these regions, but the precise extent of the problem is not known. Methods. From February 2012 to April 2013, travelers attending 6 international vaccination centers in the Paris area prior to traveling to tropical regions were asked to provide a fecal sample before and after their trip. Those found to have acquired MRE were asked to send fecal samples 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months after their return, or until MRE was no longer detected. The fecal relative abundance of MRE among all Enterobacteriaceae was determined in each carrier. Results. Among 824 participating travelers, 574 provided fecal samples before and after travel and were not MRE carriers before departure. Of these, 292 (50.9%) acquired an average of 1.8 MRE. Three travelers (0.5%) acquired carba-penemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. The acquisition rate was higher in Asia (142/196 [72.4%]) than in sub-Saharan Africa (93/195 [47.7%]) or Latin America (57/183 [31.1%]). MRE acquisition was associated with the type of travel, diarrhea, and exposure to beta-lactams during the travel. Three months after return, 4.7% of the travelers carried MRE. Carriage lasted longer in travelers returning from Asia and in travelers with a high relative abundance of MRE at return. Conclusions. MRE acquisition is very frequent among travelers to tropical regions. Travel to these regions should be considered a risk factor of MRE carriage during the first 3 months after return, but not beyond.

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

4.7
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