Almoghrabi Yousef, Daghistani Hussam, Niyazi Hanouf A, Niyazi Hatoon A, AbdulMajed Hind, Juma Noha A, Daffa Noura, Helmi Noof R, Al-Rabia Mohammed W, Mokhtar Jawahir A, Saleh Bandar Hasan, Attallah Dalya M, Matar Maram, Shukri Hani Ahmed, Moqaddam Shahd A, Alamoudi Sara, Alkuwaity Khalil K, Abujamel Turki, Sait Ahmad M, Mufrrih Mohammed, Al-Zahrani Ibrahim A, O'hagan Stephen, Ismail Mazen A, Alharbi Ohood S, Momin Hattan Jamal, Abu Ibrahim Mohammed, Alfadil Abdelbagi, Ibrahem Karem
Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia.
Regenerative Medicine Unit, King Fahd Medical Research Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia.
Int J Gen Med. 2024 Dec 3;17:5715-5725. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S489514. eCollection 2024.
This six-year retrospective study provides an in-depth analysis of the epidemiological and clinical patterns associated with () infections, focusing on age distribution, antibiotic resistance profiles, and specimen types.
The research examines the incidence and characteristics of non-Multi-Drug Resistant (non-MDR) and Multi-Drug Resistant (MDR) strains by reviewing patient records from January 2016 to December 2022.
Through a statistical analysis, the study highlights the incidence rates across diverse age groups and explores the impact of antibiotic treatment regimens on infection outcomes. Additionally, it identifies the primary clinical specimen types for each strain, noting an association between non-MDR and midstream urine samples, while MDR strains were more frequently found in respiratory, wound, peripheral, and central line swaps/specimens.
The results indicate that in 2016, non-MDR infections were notably more frequent compared to MDR cases. However, a significant shift occurred in 2021 and 2022, with a marked decrease in non-MDR cases and an increase in MDR infections. Antibiotic susceptibility testing revealed that non-MDR strains were commonly tested against cefazolin, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, nitrofurantoin, oxacillin, piperacillin/tazobactam, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. In contrast, MDR strains were frequently tested against amikacin, cefepime, colistin, meropenem, imipenem, and tigecycline.
This study enhances the understanding of clinical behaviour and resistance patterns, offering valuable insights to support future research and inform strategies for infectious disease management and control.
这项为期六年的回顾性研究深入分析了与()感染相关的流行病学和临床模式,重点关注年龄分布、抗生素耐药谱和标本类型。
该研究通过回顾2016年1月至2022年12月的患者记录,调查非多重耐药(non-MDR)和多重耐药(MDR)()菌株的发病率及特征。
通过统计分析,该研究突出了不同年龄组的发病率,并探讨了抗生素治疗方案对感染结果的影响。此外,它还确定了每种菌株的主要临床标本类型,指出非MDR()与中段尿样本之间存在关联,而MDR菌株在呼吸道、伤口、外周和中心静脉导管拭子/标本中更为常见。
结果表明,2016年,非MDR()感染比MDR病例明显更频繁。然而,在2021年和2022年发生了显著变化,非MDR病例显著减少,MDR感染增加。抗生素敏感性测试显示,非MDR菌株通常针对头孢唑林、头孢他啶、环丙沙星、庆大霉素、呋喃妥因、苯唑西林、哌拉西林/他唑巴坦和甲氧苄啶/磺胺甲恶唑进行测试。相比之下,MDR菌株经常针对阿米卡星、头孢吡肟、黏菌素、美罗培南、亚胺培南和替加环素进行测试。
本研究增进了对()临床行为和耐药模式的理解,为支持未来研究以及为传染病管理和控制策略提供信息提供了有价值的见解。