Evidence Hub

Effect of carbapenem resistance on outcomes of bloodstream infection caused by Enterobacteriaceae in low-income and middle-income countries (PANORAMA): a multinational prospective cohort study

A. Stewardson, K. Marimuthu, S. Sengupta, A. Allignol, M. El-Bouseary, M. J. Carvalho, B. Hassan, Mónica A Delgado-Ramírez et al.

Lancet. Infectious Diseases (Print), 2019

297 participants · 172 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in reports on the burden of antimicrobial resistance. We aimed to quantify the clinical effect of carbapenem resistance on mortality and length of hospital stay among inpatients in LMICs with a bloodstream infection due to Enterobacteriaceae.

METHODS

The PANORAMA study was a multinational prospective cohort study at tertiary hospitals in Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, Ghana, India, Lebanon, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Vietnam, recruiting consecutively diagnosed patients with carbapenem-susceptible Enterobacteriaceae (CSE) and carbapenem-resistant Entero-bacteriaceae (CRE) bloodstream infections. We excluded patients who had previously been enrolled in the study and those not treated with curative intent at the time of bloodstream infection onset. There were no age restrictions. Central laboratories in India and the UK did confirmatory testing and molecular characterisation, including strain typing. We applied proportional subdistribution hazard models with inverse probability weighting to estimate the effect of carbapenem resistance on probability of discharge alive and in-hospital death, and multistate modelling for excess length of stay in hospital. All patients were included in the analysis.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015, we recruited 297 patients from 16 sites in ten countries: 174 with CSE bloodstream infection and 123 with CRE bloodstream infection. Median age was 46 years…

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: 297 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