Muhammad Sohail1,2, Abid Rashid3, Bilal Aslam4, Muhammad Waseem4, Muhammad Shahid5, Muhammad Akram6, Mohsin Khurshid3,4, Muhammad Hidayat Rasool4. 1. Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Quaid-e-Azam Campus, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. 2. Chughtais Lahore Lab, Lahore, Pakistan. 3. College of Allied Health Professionals, Directorate of Medical Sciences, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan. 4. Department of Microbiology, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan. 5. Department of Bioinformatics and Biotechnology, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan. 6. Department of Biosciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The drug resistant Acinetobacter strains are important causes of nosocomial infections that are difficult to control and treat. This study aimed to determine the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Acinetobacter strains isolated from different clinical specimens obtained from patients belonging to different age groups. METHODS: In total, 716 non-duplicate Acinetobacter isolates were collected from the infected patients admitted to tertiary-care hospitals at Lahore, Pakistan, over a period of 28 months. The Acinetobacter isolates were identified using API 20E, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed and interpreted according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. RESULTS: The isolation rate of Acinetobacter was high from the respiratory specimens, followed by wound samples. Antibiotic susceptibility analyses of the isolates revealed that the resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime was the most common, in 710 (99.2%) specimens each, followed by the resistance to gentamicin in 670 (93.6%) isolates, and to imipenem in 651 (90.9%) isolates. However, almost all isolates were susceptible to tigecycline, colistin, and polymyxin B. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed the alarming trends of resistance of Acinetobacter strains isolated from clinical specimens to the various classes of antimicrobials. The improvement of microbiological techniques for earlier and more accurate identification of bacteria is necessary for the selection of appropriate treatments.
INTRODUCTION: The drug resistant Acinetobacter strains are important causes of nosocomial infections that are difficult to control and treat. This study aimed to determine the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Acinetobacter strains isolated from different clinical specimens obtained from patients belonging to different age groups. METHODS: In total, 716 non-duplicate Acinetobacter isolates were collected from the infectedpatients admitted to tertiary-care hospitals at Lahore, Pakistan, over a period of 28 months. The Acinetobacter isolates were identified using API 20E, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed and interpreted according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. RESULTS: The isolation rate of Acinetobacter was high from the respiratory specimens, followed by wound samples. Antibiotic susceptibility analyses of the isolates revealed that the resistance to cefotaxime and ceftazidime was the most common, in 710 (99.2%) specimens each, followed by the resistance to gentamicin in 670 (93.6%) isolates, and to imipenem in 651 (90.9%) isolates. However, almost all isolates were susceptible to tigecycline, colistin, and polymyxin B. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed the alarming trends of resistance of Acinetobacter strains isolated from clinical specimens to the various classes of antimicrobials. The improvement of microbiological techniques for earlier and more accurate identification of bacteria is necessary for the selection of appropriate treatments.
Authors: Mohsin Khurshid; Muhammad Hidayat Rasool; Usman Ali Ashfaq; Bilal Aslam; Muhammad Waseem; Muhammad Akhtar Ali; Ahmad Almatroudi; Farhan Rasheed; Muhammad Saeed; Qinglan Guo; Minggui Wang Journal: Infect Drug Resist Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Irfan A Butt; Bilal Aslam; Muhammad H Rasool; Humerah B Shafiq; Mohsin Khurshid; Muhammad A Aslam Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Ingvild Odsbu; Smita Khedkar; Uday Khedkar; Sandeep S Nerkar; Ashok J Tamhankar; Cecilia Stålsby Lundborg Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Michael A Olu-Taiwo; Japheth A Opintan; Francis Samuel Codjoe; Akua Obeng Forson Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 3.411