Increasing antimicrobial resistance in nosocomial pathogens; multidrug-resistant extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the antimicrobial susceptibility of Acinetobacter baumannii strains, which were isolated from nosocomial infections and compare the changes in resistance rates of isolates over time. Methods: Acinetobacter spp. strains isolated from hospitalized patients diagnosed with nosocomial infection at Cumhuriyet University Hospital between 2007 and 2011 were included in the study. Isolate identification and antibiotic susceptibility test were performed using an automated system according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Results: In total, 454 Acinetobacter spp. strains were included in this study. A. baumannii was the most frequently isolated Acinetobacter species. Imipenem and meropenem resistance were determined to be 31.9% and 33.7%, respectively, and 74.4%, 78.0%, 76.7%, 46.6%, 62.4%, 66.8%, 61.3% and 53.9% of isolates were resistant to piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime, cefepim, amikacin, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and tetracycline respectively. The resistance rates of multidrug-resistant (MDR), extensively drug-resistant (XDR), and pandrug-resistant (PDR) A. baumannii were 50.2%, 28.5%, and 14.0%, respectively. Changes in MDR, XDR and PDR rates over time were examined. Importantly, PDR A. baumannii have been reached dangerous levels over time. Conclusion: A. baumannii is one of the most important pathogen, particularly in a nosocomial setting. Increasing resistance rates of this group to all antibiotics will likely lead to increased treatment failure in the future.

Keywords

• Acinetobacter baumannii, antimicrobial resistance, nosocomial infections

Increasing antimicrobial resistance in nosocomial pathogens; multidrug-resistant extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada nozokomiyal enfeksiyonlardan izole edilen Acinetobacter spp. suşlarının antimikrobiyal duyarlılıkları tespit edilerek yıllar içerisindeki direnç değişimlerinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Yöntemler: Çalışmamıza 2007-2011 tarihleri arasında Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Hastanesinde tedavi gören ve nozokomiyal enfeksiyon tanısı konulan hastaların klinik örneklerinden izole edilen Acinetobacter spp. suşları alınmıştır. Suşların tanımlanması ve antimikrobiyal duyarlılık testleri Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute önerilerine göre otomatize sistem kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Bulgular: Klinik örneklerinden izole edilen toplam 454 Acinetobacter spp. suşu çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. A. baumannii en sık izole edilen Acinetobacter türü olarak saptandı. İmipenem ve meropenem dirençli suş oranı sırası ile % 31.9 ve % 33.7 olarak saptanırken, piperasilin/tazobaktam, seftazidim, sefepim, amikasin, gentamisin, siprofloksasin, levofloksasin ve tetrasiklin direnç oranları sırası ile % 74,4, % 78.0, % 76.7, % 46.6, % 62.4, % 66.8, % 61.3 ve % 53.9 olarak saptandı. Çok ilaca dirençli (MDR), yaygın ilaç dirençli (XDR) ve tüm ilaçlara dirençli (PDR) A. baumannii oranları sırası % 50.2, % 28.5 ve % 14.0 olarak bulundu. Yıllar içindeki MDR, XDR ve PDR suş oranları değişimleri incelendiğinde, özellikle PDR A. baumannii oranının tehlikeli düzeylerde arttığı görüldü.Sonuç: A. baumannii nozokomiyal enfeksiyonlarda en önemli patojenlerden biridir ve tüm antibiyotiklere karşı artan direnç oranları gelecekte daha çok tedavi başarısızlıklarına neden olacağı muhtemeldir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Acinetobacter baumannii; antimikrobiyal direnç, nozokomiyal enfeksiyon

Kaynakça

1. Curtis LT. Prevention of hospital-acquired infections: re- view of non pharmacological interventions J Hosp Infect 2008;69:204-219.
2. Sunenshine RH, Wright MO, Maragakis LL, et al. Multidrug- resistant Acinetobacter infection: mortality rate and length of hospitalization. Emerg Infect Dis 2007;13:97-103.
3. Nicoletti G, Schito G, Fadda G, et al. Bacterial isolates from severe infections and their antibiotic susceptibility patterns in Italy: a nationwide study in the hospital setting. J Chemother 2006;18:589-602.
4. Joshi SG, Litake GM, Satpute MG, et al. Clinical and demo- graphic features of infection caused by Acinetobacter spe- cies. Indian J Med Sci 2006;60:351-360.
5. Doi Y, Husain S, Potoski BA, et al. Extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Emerg Infect Dis 2009;15:980- 982.
6. Towner KJ. Acinetobacter: an old friend, but a new enemy. J Hosp Infect 2009;73:355-363.
7. Saltoğlu N. Treatment of Acinetobacter baumannii infections. Klimik J 2007;20:204-207.
8. Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, et al. Multidrug- re- sistant, extensively drug resistant and pandrug resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim stan- dard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012;18:268-281.

9. Clark NM, Patterson J, Lynch JP: Antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative organisms in the intensive care unit. Curr Opin Crit Care 2003;9:413-423.
10. Falagas ME, Kasiakou SK, Rafailidis PI, et al. Comparison of mortality of patients with Acinetobacter baumannii bacterae- mia receiving appropriate and inappropriate empirical thera- phy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;57:1251-1254.
11. Karageorgopoulos DE, Falagas ME. Current control and treatment of multidrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in- fections. Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:751-762.
12. Schreckenberger PC, Daneshvar MI, Weyant RS, Hollis DG. Acinetobacter, Achromobacter, Chryseobacterium, Morax- ella and Other Nonfermantative Gram Negative Rods In: Murray PR, Baron EJ, Pfaller MA, Landry ML, Jorgensen JH. (Eds.). Manuel of Clinical Microbiology 9th ed. Washinghton ASM Pres 2007:770-802.
13. Ünal S, Rodriguez JAG. Activity of meropenem and compar- ators against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. isolated in the MYSTIC Program, 2002-2004. Diagn Mi- crobiol Infect Dis 2005;53:265-271.
14. Looveren MV, Goossens H, ARPAC Steering Group. Antimi- crobial resistance of Acinetobacter spp. in Europe Clin Mi- crobiol Infect 2004;10:684-704.
15. Broek PJ, Reijden TJK, Strijen E, et al. Endemic and epidem- ic Acinetobacter species in a university hospital: an 8-year survey J Clin Microbiol 2009;47:3593-3599.
16. Dent LL, Marshall DR, Pratap S, Hulette RB. Multidrug re- sistant Acinetobacter baumannii: a descriptive study in a city hospital BMC Infect Dis 2010; 10:196.
17. Gaur A, Garg A, Prakash P, et al. Observations on carbape- nem resistance by minimum inhibitory concentration in noso- comial isolates of Acinetobacter species: An experience at a tertiary care hospital in North India J Health Popul Nutr 2008;26:83-188.
18. Lee K, Lee MA, Lee CH, et al. Increase of ceftazidime- and fluoroquinolone-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and imipenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp. in Korea: Analysis of KONSAR study data from 2005 and 2007. Yonsei Med J 2010;51:901-911.
19. Ko WC, Lee NY, Su SC, et al. Oligonucleotide array-based identification of species in the Acinetobacter calcoaceticus- A. baumannii complex in isolates from blood cultures and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the isolates. J Clin Mi- crobiol 2008;46:2052-2059.
20. Eser ÖK, Ergin A, Hasçelik G. Antimicrobial resistance and existence of metallo-beta-lactamase in Acinetobacter spe- cies isolated from adult patients. Mikrobiyol Bul 2009;43:383- 390.
21. Yüce A, Yapar N, Kutsoylu OE. Evaluation of antibiotic re- sistance patterns of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Aci- netobacter spp. strains isolated from intensive care patients between 2000-2002 and 2003-2006 periods in Dokuz Eylul University Hospital, Izmir. Mikrobiyol Bul 2009;43:195-202.
22. Turner PJ. Meropenem activity against European isolates: report on the MYSTIC (Meropenem Yearly Susceptibility Test Information Collection) 2006 results. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2008;60:185-192.
23. Metan G, Alp E, Aygen B, Sümerkan B. Carbapenem-resis- tant Acinetobacter baumannii: an emerging threat for pa- tients with post neurosurgical meningitis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2007;29:112-113.
24. Alp E, Esel D, Yıldız O, et al. Genotypic analysis of Acineto- bacter bloodstream infection isolates in a Turkish university hospital. Scand J Infect Dis 2006;38:335-340.
25. Deveci A, Coban AY, Acicbe O, et al. In vitro effects of sul- bactam combinations with different antibiotic groups against clinical Acinetobacter baumannii isolates. J Chemother 2012;24:247-252.
26. Zhang Y, Chen F, Sun E, et al. In vitro antibacterial activity of combinations of fosfomycin, minocycline and polymyxin B on pan-drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Exp Ther Med 2013;5:1737-1739.
27. Joung MK, Kwon KJ, Kong CI, et al. Impact of in appropriate antimicrobial theraphy on outcome in patients with hospital- acquired pneumoniae caused by Acinetobacter baumannii. J Infect 2010;61:212-218.
28. Aimsaad L, Diraphat P, Utrarachkij F, et al. Epidemiologi- cal characteristics of Acinetobacter baumannii infections at Phramongkutklao Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai 2009;92:164- 172.
29. Duenas Diez AI, Bratos Perez MA, Eiros Bouza JM, et al. Susceptibility of the Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-A.bauman- nii complex to imipenem, meropenem, sulbactam and colis- tin, Int J Antimicrob Agents 2004;23:487-493.
30. Michalopoulos A S, Tsiodras S, Rellos K, et al. Colistin treat- ment in patients with ICU-acquired infections caused by mul- tiresistant gram-negative bacteria: the renaissance of an old antibiotic Clin Microbiol Infect 2005;11:115-121.
31. Garnacho-Montero J, Ortiz-Leyba C, Jime´nez-Jime´nez FJ, et al. Treatment of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter bau- mannii ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) with intrave- nous colistin: a comparison with imipenem-susceptible VAP Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:1111-1118.
32. Oztoprak N. Intensive care units infections and antimicro- bial drugs. Turkiye Klinikleri J Pulm Med-Special Topics 2010;3:55-62.