4.6 Article

Comparative Epidemiology and Resistance Trends of Proteae in Urinary Tract Infections of Inpatients and Outpatients: A 10-Year Retrospective Study

期刊

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics8030091

关键词

urinary tract infection; UTI; antibiotic; resistance; indicator; epidemiology; fosfomycin; Morganella; Proteus; Providencia

资金

  1. MDPI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Compared with infections caused by other bacterial pathogens, urinary tract infections (UTIs) caused by Proteae are often more severe and associated with a higher rate of recurrence, sequelae, and pyelonephritis. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess and compare the prevalence of UTIs caused by different species of the Proteae tribe (namely Proteus, Morganella and Providencia species) and the antibiotic resistance levels isolated from inpatients and outpatients in a primary- and tertiary-care teaching hospital in the Southern Great Plain of Hungary, during a 10-year study period. To evaluate the resistance trends of isolated strains, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, ceftriaxone, meropenem, ertapenem, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, and fosfomycin were chosen as indicator antibiotics, based on local antibiotic utilization data. Members of Proteae were more frequently isolated in the case of inpatients (7.20 +/- 1.74% vs. 5.00 +/- 0.88%; p = 0.0031), P. mirabilis was the most frequently isolated member of the group. The ratio of resistant strains to sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, ciprofloxacin, ceftriaxone, and fosfomycin was significantly higher in the inpatient group. In the case of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, the ratio of resistant isolates was markedly higher between 2013-2017 (p < 0.01). Resistance developments of Proteae, coupled with their intrinsic non-susceptibility to several antibiotics (tetracyclines, colistin, nitrofurantoin) severely limits the number of therapeutic alternatives, especially for outpatients.

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