| Literature DB >> 28264656 |
Qiwen Yang1, Hui Zhang1, Yao Wang1, Zhipeng Xu1, Ge Zhang1, Xinxin Chen1, Yingchun Xu2, Bin Cao3, Haishen Kong4, Yuxing Ni5, Yunsong Yu6, Ziyong Sun7, Bijie Hu8, Wenxiang Huang9, Yong Wang10, Anhua Wu11, Xianju Feng12, Kang Liao13, Yanping Luo14, Zhidong Hu15, Yunzhuo Chu16, Juan Lu17, Jianrong Su18, Bingdong Gui19, Qiong Duan20, Shufang Zhang21, Haifeng Shao22, Robert E Badal23.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the distribution and susceptibility of aerobic and facultative Gram-negative bacilli isolated from Chinese patients with UTIs collected within 48 h (community acquired, CA) or after 48 h (hospital acquired, HA) of hospital admission.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial resistance; Carbapenems; Extended spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs); Urinary tract infections
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28264656 PMCID: PMC5340045 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-017-2296-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Distribution of the UTI pathogens in China between 2010 and 2014
| Total | CA (n/% of total) | HA (n/% of total) | Not identified (n/% of total) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3,832 | 1,039 (27.11) | 2,765 (72.16) | 28 (0.73) | <0.0001 |
|
| 2,737 | 739 (27.00) | 1,976 (72.20) | 22 (0.80) | <0.0001 |
|
| 529 | 129 (24.39) | 398 (75.24) | 2 (0.38) | <0.0001 |
|
| 147 | 54 (36.73) | 92 (62.59) | 1 (0.68) | 0.011 |
|
| 141 | 39 (27.66) | 101 (71.63) | 1 (0.71) | <0.0001 |
|
| 54 | 11 (20.37) | 43 (79.63) | 0 (0.00) | 0.0003 |
|
| 51 | 18 (35.29) | 33 (64.71) | 0 (0.00) | 0.1205 |
|
| 173 | 49 (28.32) | 122 (70.52) | 2 (1.16) | <0.0001 |
|
| 500 | 105 (21.00) | 391 (78.2) | 4 (0.8) | <0.0001 |
|
| 297 | 65 (21.89) | 231 (77.78) | 1 (0.34) | <0.0001 |
|
| 143 | 26 (18.18) | 115 (80.42) | 2 (1.40) | <0.0001 |
|
| 60 | 14 (23.33) | 45 (75.00) | 1 (1.67) | <0.0001 |
| All | 4,332 | 1,144 (26.41) | 3,156 (72.85) | 32 (0.74) | <0.0001 |
Not identified: A total of 32 isolates lacked partial demographic information and could not be identified as CA or HA isolates. They were not included in further analyses
Fig. 1Trends over time in the susceptibility of isolates from UTIs to antimicrobial agents in China. *EPM, ertapenem; IPM, imipenem; AMK, amikacin; TZP, piperacillin-tazobactam; FOX, cefoxitin; FEP, cefepime; CAZ, ceftazidime; CRO, ceftriaxone; CTX, cefotaxime; LVX, levofloxacin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; SAM, ampicillin-sulbactam. Note: The data of ETP FOX CRO and CTX susceptibilities for P. aeruginosa and ETP as well as FOX sensitivities for A. baumannii were not shown because of lack of corresponding breakpoints
Susceptibilities of UTI pathogens isolated between 2010 and 2014
| Antibiotics | S% | MIC50 (μg/ml) | MIC90 (μg/ml) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| IPM | 98.72 | 0.12 | 0.25 |
| ETP | 96.42 | ≤0.03 | 0.25 | |
| AMK | 92.88 | ≤4 | 16 | |
| TZP | 92.51 | ≤2 | 16 | |
|
| IPM | 92.63 | 0.25 | 1 |
| AMK | 89.22 | ≤4 | >32 | |
| ETP | 87.9 | ≤0.03 | 1 | |
| TZP | 75.8 | ≤2 | >64 | |
|
| ETP | 99.32 | ≤0.03 | 0.06 |
| TZP | 99.32 | ≤2 | 4 | |
| AMK | 91.16 | 8 | 16 | |
| CAZ | 88.44 | ≤0.5 | 8 | |
|
| AMK | 90.07 | ≤4 | 16 |
| IPM | 85.11 | 0.5 | 2 | |
| ETP | 78.72 | 0.12 | 4 | |
| TZP | 67.38 | 4 | >64 | |
|
| AMK | 84.18 | 8 | >32 |
| TZP | 76.43 | 4 | >64 | |
| IPM | 74.75 | 1 | >8 | |
| CAZ | 74.41 | 4 | 64 | |
|
| IPM | 46.85 | 8 | >8 |
| AMK | 46.15 | >32 | >32 | |
| LVX | 36.36 | >4 | >4 | |
| CAZ | 34.27 | 64 | >128 |
Fig. 2ESBL rate of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus mirabilis from UTIs in different regions and years in China (SMART 2010–2014). a-c ESBL rates of all samples, b ESBL rates of HA UTI isolates, c ESBL rates of CA UTIs. d ESBL rates of all samples, e HA UTI isolates and f CA UTI isolates collected between 2010 and 2014 in the indicated Chinese regions. * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01
Fig. 3Trends over time in the susceptibility of isolates from UTIs to antimicrobial agents in China (CA and HA). *EPM, ertapenem; IPM, imipenem; AMK, amikacin; TZP, piperacillin-tazobactam; FOX, cefoxitin; FEP, cefepime; CAZ, ceftazidime; CRO, ceftriaxone; CTX, cefotaxime; LVX, levofloxacin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; SAM, ampicillin-sulbactam. Note: The data of ETP FOX CRO and CTX susceptibilities for P. aeruginosa and ETP as well as FOX sensitivities for A. baumannii were not shown because of lack of corresponding breakpoints