Evidence Hub

Clinical characteristics and genome epidemiology of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in Japan

Hase R, Sakurai A, Suzuki M, Itoh N, Hayakawa K, Uemura K, Matsumura Y, Kato H et al.

The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2024

78 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

Background: Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogen increasingly responsible for difficult-to-treat nosocomial infections.

Objectives: To describe the contemporary clinical characteristics and genome epidemiology of patients colonized or infected by S. maltophilia in a multicentre, prospective cohort.

Methods: All patients with a clinical culture growing S. maltophilia were enrolled at six tertiary hospitals across Japan between April 2019 and March 2022. The clinical characteristics, outcomes, antimicrobial susceptibility and genomic epidemiology of cases with S. maltophilia were investigated.

Results: In total, 78 patients were included representing 34 infection and 44 colonization cases. The median age was 72.5 years (IQR, 61-78), and males accounted for 53 cases (68%). The most common comorbidity was localized solid malignancy (39%). Nearly half of the patients (44%) were immunosuppressed, with antineoplastic chemotherapy accounting for 31%. The respiratory tract was the most common site of colonization (86%), whereas bacteraemia accounted for most infection cases (56%). The 30 day all-cause mortality rate was 21%, which was significantly higher in infection cases than colonization cases (35% versus 9%; adjusted HR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.22-11.96). Susceptibility rates to ceftazidime, levofloxacin, minocycline and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim were 14%, 65%, 87% and 100%, respectively. The percentage of infection ranged from 13% in the…

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: 78 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