Evidence Hub

The prevalence and clinical context of antimicrobial resistance amongst medical inpatients at a referral hospital in Rwanda: a cohort study

Bizimungu O, Crook P, Babane JF, Bitunguhari L

Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2024

119 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing global concern. AMR surveillance is a crucial component of the international response; however, passive surveillance of laboratory data is limited without corresponding patient-level clinical data. This study sought to examine the burden of AMR amongst medical inpatients in Rwanda, in the context of their clinical presentations and prior antibiotic exposures.

METHODS: This cohort study was conducted over a 9-month period at a tertiary referral hospital in Kigali, Rwanda. We enrolled 122 adult medical inpatients with a history of fever and a positive microbiological culture result. Data were collected regarding the clinical and microbiological aspects of their admission.

RESULTS: The most common diagnoses were urinary tract infection (n = 36, 30%), followed by pneumonia (n = 30, 25%) and bacteraemia (11 primary [9%] and 10 catheter-related [8%]). The most common pathogens were E. coli (n = 40, 33%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 36, 30%). The cohort were heavily antibiotic-exposed at the time of culture with 98% of patients (n = 119) having received an antibiotic prior to culture, with a median exposure of 3 days (IQR 2-4 days). Eighty patients (66%) were specifically prescribed ceftriaxone at the time of culture. Gram-negative organisms predominated (82% [100/122]) and exhibited high rates of resistance, with only 27% (21/77) being susceptible to ceftriaxone, 2.4% (2/82) susceptible to co-amoxiclav and 44% (8/18)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 119 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free