Evidence Hub

Clinical presentation and antimicrobial resistance of invasive Escherichia coli disease in hospitalized older adults: a prospective multinational observational study

Doua J, Rodríguez-Baño J, Froget R, Puranam P, Go O, Geurtsen J, van Rooij S, Vilken T et al.

Infection, 2024

240 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical data characterizing invasive Escherichia coli disease (IED) are limited. We assessed the clinical presentation of IED and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) patterns of causative E. coli isolates in older adults.

METHODS: EXPECT-2 (NCT04117113) was a prospective, observational, multinational, hospital-based study conducted in patients with IED aged ≥ 60 years. IED was determined by the microbiological confirmation of E. coli from blood; or by the microbiological confirmation of E. coli from urine or an otherwise sterile body site in the presence of requisite criteria of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), or quick SOFA (qSOFA). The primary outcomes were the clinical presentation of IED and AMR rates of E. coli isolates to clinically relevant antibiotics. Complications and in-hospital mortality were assessed through 28 days following IED diagnosis.

RESULTS: Of 240 enrolled patients, 80.4% had bacteremic and 19.6% had non-bacteremic IED. One-half of infections (50.4%) were community-acquired. The most common source of infection was the urinary tract (62.9%). Of 240 patients, 65.8% fulfilled ≥ 2 SIRS criteria, and 60.4% had a total SOFA score of ≥ 2. Investigator-diagnosed sepsis and septic shock were reported in 72.1% and 10.0% of patients, respectively. The most common complication was kidney dysfunction (12.9%). The overall in-hospital mortality was 4.6%. Of 299 E. coli isolates tested, the resistance…

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: 240 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