| Literature DB >> 20525383 |
Gopinath Balakrish Nair1, Thandavarayan Ramamurthy, Mihir Kumar Bhattacharya, Triveni Krishnan, Sandipan Ganguly, Dhira Rani Saha, Krishnan Rajendran, Byomkesh Manna, Mrinmoy Ghosh, Keinosuke Okamoto, Yoshifumi Takeda.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to determine the etiology of diarrhoea in a hospital setting in Kolkata. Active surveillance was conducted for 2 years on two random days per week by enrolling every fifth diarrhoeal patient admitted to the Infectious Diseases and Beliaghata General Hospital in Kolkata.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20525383 PMCID: PMC2901208 DOI: 10.1186/1757-4749-2-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gut Pathog ISSN: 1757-4749 Impact factor: 4.181
Figure 1Month-wise details on number of admitted and enrolled cases in the surveillance.
Figure 2Flowchart showing the admission rates of diarrhoea, the number of cases enrolled in the active surveillance, sampling details and prevalence status of the pathogens.
Age group wise isolation of enteric pathogen
| Age <5 years | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pathogen* | 0 - 11 month | 12 - 23 month | 24 - 59 month | Total Age <5 yr | Age ≥ 5 yr | All Age Group |
| n(%) | n(%) | n(%) | n(%) | n(%) | n(%) | |
| 22(9) | 34(15) | 50(28.4) | 106(16.4) | 548(29.3) | 654(26) | |
| 2(0.1) | 2(0.1) | |||||
| 2(0.8) | 1(0.4) | 1(0.6) | 4(0.6) | 51(2.7) | 55(2.2) | |
| 1(0.4) | 2(1.1) | 3(0.5) | 71(3.8) | 74(2.9) | ||
| 3(1.2) | 7(3.1) | 1(0.6) | 11(1.7) | 44(2.4) | 55(2.2) | |
| 1(0.4) | 2(0.9) | 1(0.6) | 4(0.6) | 21(1.1) | 25(1) | |
| 18(7.3) | 22(9.7) | 20(11.4) | 60(9.3) | 58(3.1) | 118(4.7) | |
| 1(0.4) | 1(0.6) | 2(0.3) | 20(1.1) | 22(0.9) | ||
| 8(3.3) | 21(9.3) | 22(12.5) | 51(7.9) | 103(5.5) | 154(6.1) | |
| 1(0.4) | 1(0.6) | 2(0.3) | 21(1.1) | 23(0.9) | ||
| 11(4.5) | 8(3.5) | 2(1.1) | 21(3.2) | 24(1.3) | 45(1.8) | |
| ETEC | 9(3.7) | 13(5.7) | 5(2.8) | 27(4.2) | 87(4.6) | 114(4.5) |
| 32(13.1) | 28(12.3) | 18(10.2) | 78(12) | 81(4.3) | 159(6.3) | |
| 130(53.1) | 134(59) | 48(27.3) | 312(48.1) | 181(9.7) | 493(19.6) | |
| 37(15.1) | 26(11.5) | 12(6.8) | 75(11.6) | 51(2.7) | 126(5) | |
| 2(0.9) | 2(0.3) | 4(0.2) | 6(0.2) | |||
| 13(5.3) | 10(4.4) | 6(3.4) | 29(4.5) | 43(2.3) | 72(2.9) | |
| 13(5.3) | 4(1.8) | 4(2.3) | 21(3.2) | 20(1.1) | 41(1.6) | |
| 6(2.4) | 7(3.1) | 5(2.8) | 18(2.8) | 41(2.2) | 59(2.3) | |
| 11(0.6) | 11(0.4) | |||||
| 8(3.3) | 13(5.7) | 5(2.8) | 26(4) | 56(3) | 82(3.3) | |
| 25(10.2) | 34(15) | 33(18.8) | 92(14.2) | 189(10.1) | 281(11.2) | |
| 37(15.1) | 22(9.7) | 12(6.8) | 71(11) | 87(4.6) | 158(6.3) | |
*STEC and EIEC were negative in all stool specimens
Antimicrobial resistance in V. cholerae O1 and Shigella spp
| Percentage resistance | ||
|---|---|---|
| Antimicrobial | ||
| Ampicillin | 61.7 | 54.5 |
| Azithromycin | 2.5* | 41.6 |
| Ceftriaxone | 12.3* | 5.2 |
| Chloramphenicol | 1.3 | 64.3 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 8.7 | 90.3 |
| Co-Trimoxazole | 87.4 | 94.2 |
| Doxycycline | 1.2* | ND |
| Erythromycin | 10.4 | 98.7 |
| Furazolidone | 90.9 | 91.6 |
| Gentamycin | 0.0 | ND |
| Nalidixic acid | 93.0 | 93.5 |
| Neomycin | 0.0 | ND |
| Norfloxacin | 0.9 | 83.1 |
| Ofloxacin | 7.4* | 81.8 |
| Streptomycin | 84.9 | 98.1 |
| Tetracycline | 47.0 | 89.0 |
Note: * n = 81, ND = Not Done
Figure 3Comparison of infection status by different enteric pathogens in < 5 and ≥5 age groups.
Observation of mixed pathogens with V. cholerae O1 and Rotavirus infection from 2519 acute diarrhoeal samples
| Rotavirus | ||
|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | |
| - | 46 (16.1) | |
| Shigellae | 12 (4.3) | 11 (3.9) |
| DEC2 | 68 (24.5) | 80 (28.1) |
| Other enteric bacteria3 | 70 (25.3) | 57 (20) |
| Rotavirus | 41 (14.8) | - |
| Other virus4 | 36 (13) | 98 (34.4) |
| Parasites5 | 126 (45.5) | 117 (41.1) |
Note:
1. V. cholerae O1, V. cholerae O139 and V. cholerae no- O1, no- O139
2. EPEC, ETEC (LT), ETEC (ST), ETEC (LT, ST) and EAEC
3. V. parahaemolyticus, V. fluvialis, Aeromonas spp., C. jejuni, C. coli and Salmonella
4. Adenovirus, Norovirus GI, Norovirus GII, Sapovirus and Astrovirus
5. B. hominis, E. histolytica, Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium sp
Figure 4Estimation of infections by different enteric pathogens in two consecutive years.
Multinomial Logistic Regression Models exploring significant risk age group of predominant enteric pathogenic infection at IDH, Kolkata (November 2007-October 2009)
| Age in Years | Enteric pathogens | B | OR (95% CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -1.31 | 0.27(0.16-0.46) | 0.000* | ||
| 2.46 | 11.72(6.73-20.41) | 0.000* | ||
| -0.81 | 0.44(0.18-1.08) | 0.073 | ||
| 0.87 | 2.39(1.09-5.24) | 0.030* | ||
| -0.74 | 0.48(0.30-0.76) | 0.002* | ||
| 2.42 | 11.28(6.54-19.45) | 0.000* | ||
| 0.32 | 1.38(0.70-2.73) | 0.354 | ||
| 1.38 | 3.99(1.89-8.41) | 0.000* | ||
| 0.32 | 1.38(0.88-2.17) | 0.162 | ||
| 1.05 | 2.85(1.55-5.25) | 0.001* | ||
| 0.66 | 1.93(0.95-3.93) | 0.070 | ||
| 1.38 | 3.96(1.80-8.71) | 0.001* | ||
| 0.36 | 1.43(0.93-2.19) | 0.101 | ||
| -0.05 | 0.95(0.48-1.87) | 0.885 | ||
| 0.18 | 1.20(0.57-2.49) | 0.636 | ||
| 1.81 | 6.11(2.90-12.88) | 0.000* | ||
| 0.23 | 1.26(0.89-1.80) | 0.195 | ||
| -0.01 | 0.99(0.57-1.72) | 0.977 | ||
| -0.68 | 0.51(0.26-0.99) | 0.040* | ||
| 0.79 | 2.20(1.08-4.51) | 0.031* | ||
| -0.15 | 0.86(0.59-1.26) | 0.444 | ||
| 0.06 | 1.06(0.60-1.87) | 0.845 | ||
| -0.44 | 0.65(0.33-1.28) | 0.209 | ||
| 0.70 | 2.01(0.96-4.21) | 0.064 | ||
| 0.06 | 1.07(0.71-1.60) | 0.756 | ||
| -0.01 | 0.99(0.53-1.83) | 0.965 | ||
| 0.00 | 1.00(0.50-2.02) | 0.992 | ||
| 0.70 | 2.02(0.93-4.41) | 0.077 | ||
| Reference category | ||||
*statistically significant
Figure 5Seasonality of predominant diarrhoeal pathogens in this hospital based surveillance.
Figure 6Chart showing the list of bacterial, viral and parasitic pathogens that were examined during the active hospital based diarrhoea surveillance.