4.5 Article

Bacteraemia among severely malnourished children infected and uninfected with the human immunodeficiency virus-1 in Kampala, Uganda

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-6-160

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To establish the magnitude of bacteraemia in severely malnourished children, and describe the types of bacteria and antimicrobial sensitivity by HIV status. Method: Isolates were recovered from 76 blood specimens. Antibiotic susceptibility tests were performed using commercial antibiotic disks and demographic and clinical findings were recorded. Results: Of the 450 children 63% were male; median age 17.0 months (inter quartile range, IQR 12-24) and 57% had oedema. 151 (36.7%) of 411 tested HIV-positive; 76 (17.1%) of 445 blood specimens grew bacterial isolates; 58% were Gram negative - S. typhimurium (27.6%) and S. enteriditis (11.8%). Staph. aureus (26.3%) and Strep. pneumoniae (13.2%) were the main Gram positive organisms. There was no difference in the risk of bacteraemia by HIV status, age <24 months, male sex, or oedema, except for oral thrush (OR 2.3 CI 1.0-5.1) and hypoalbuminaemia (OR 3.5 CI 1.0-12.1). Isolates from severely immuno-suppressed children (CD4% < 15%) were more likely to grow Salmonella enteriditis (OR 5.4; CI 1.6-17.4). The isolates were susceptible (>= 80%) to ciprofloxacin, ceftriaxone and gentamicin; with low susceptibility to chlorampenicol, ampicillin (<50%) and co-trimoxazole (<25%). Suspicion of bacteraemia had 95.9% sensitivity and 99.2% specificity. Among bacteraemic children, mortality was higher (43.5% vs 20.5%) in the HIV-positive; OR 3.0 (95% CI 1.0, 8.6). Conclusion: Bacteraemia affects 1 in every 6 severely malnourished children and carries high mortality especially among the HIV-positive. Given the high level of resistance to common antibiotics, there is need for clinical trials to determine the best combinations of antibiotics for management of bacteraemia in severely malnourished children.

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