Evidence Hub

Aetiology and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of bacterial isolates in community acquired pneumonia patients at Asir region, Saudi Arabia

Batool S, Almaghaslah D, Alqahtani A, Almanasef M, Alasmari M, Vasudevan R, Attique S, Riaz F

International journal of clinical practice, 2021

165 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Community acquired pneumonia is a commonly presenting respiratory tract infection around the world. Its treatment is problematic at times because of diversity of infecting organisms and change in susceptibility pattern to commonly prescribed antimicrobials.

METHODS: This was a single centred prospective cross sectional study. About 165 patients diagnosed with community acquired pneumonia were included and blood samples, sputum samples were taken for culture sensitivity and antimicrobial susceptibility.

RESULTS: Of the 165 patients (43% males and 57% females), 77 (46.6%) patients tested positive for bacterial pathogens out of a total of 165. The most common pathogen was Streptococcus pneumonia (34%) followed on by Hemophilus influenza (16%), Staphylococcus aureus (13%) Klebsiella (12%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10%), Legionella (6%), Eschericha coli (5%) and Proteus mirabilis (2%). The sensitivity pattern of all 77 bacterial isolates was high for cephalosporins (ceftriaxone, 81%; ceftazidime, 80%), penicillins (amoxicillin/sulbactam, 70%), quinolones (levofloxacin, 74%) and aminoglycosides (amikacin, 80.5%). The sensitivity to macrolides (azithromycin, 59.7%; clarithromycin, 53.2%) and tetracycline's (55.8%) is somewhat intermediate and low for ampicillin (42.8%) and cotrimoxazole (51.9%).

CONCLUSION: The decreased susceptibility to macrolides and tetracyclines is a matter of concern and judicious use of antimicrobials should be done to prevent further rates of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 165 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