Evidence Hub

Molecular and Clinical Epidemiology of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae in the United States: a Prospective Cohort Study

D. van Duin, C. Arias, Lauren Komarow, Liang Chen, B. Hanson, G. Weston, E. Cober, O. Garner et al.

Lancet. Infectious Diseases (Print), 2020

1,040 participants · 217 citations

Abstract

Background: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are a global threat. Here, we describe the clinical and molecular characteristics of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-defined CRE in the US. Methods: The second Consortium on Resistance Against Carbapenems in Klebsiella and other Enterobacteriaceae (CRACKLE-2, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03646227) is a prospective, multicenter, cohort study. Patients hospitalized in 49 US hospitals, with clinical cultures positive for CDC-defined CRE between 30 April 2016 and 31 August 2017 were included. Primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at 30 days. Clinical data and bacteria were collected, and whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed. Findings: 1,040 patients with unique isolates were included; 449 (43%) with infection and 591 (57%) with colonization. CDC-defined CRE admission rate was 57 CDC-defined CRE admissions/100,000 admissions (95% CI: 45–71). Three subsets of CDC-defined CRE were identified: carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (618/1,040, 59%); non-carbapenemase-producing CRE (194/1,040, 19%); and unconfirmed CRE (228/1,040, 22%; initially reported as CRE, but susceptible to carbapenems in two central laboratories). Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing clonal group 258 K. pneumoniae was the most common carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. In 449 patients with CDC-defined CRE infections, DOOR outcomes were not significantly different in patients with…

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: 1,040 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