Evidence Hub

Temporal analysis of prevalence and antibiotic-resistance patterns in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia clinical isolates in a 19-year retrospective study

AlFonaisan MK, Mubaraki MA, Althawadi SI, Obeid DA, Al-Qahtani AA, Almaghrabi RS, Alhamlan FS

Scientific reports, 2024

4,466 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a nonfermenting gram-negative bacterium associated with multiple nosocomial outbreaks. Antibiotic resistance increases healthcare costs, disease severity, and mortality. Multidrug-resistant infections (such as S. maltophilia infection) are difficult to treat with conventional antimicrobials. This study aimed to investigate the isolation rates, and resistance trends of S. maltophilia infections over the past 19 years, and provide future projections until 2030. In total, 4466 patients with S. maltophilia infection were identified. The adult and main surgical intensive care unit (ICU) had the highest numbers of patients (32.2%), followed by the cardiology department (29.8%), and the paediatric ICU (10%). The prevalence of S. maltophilia isolation increased from 7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.3-7.7%] in 2004-2007 to 15% [95% CI 10.7-19.9%] in 2020-2022. Most S. maltophilia isolates were resistant to ceftazidime (72.5%), levofloxacin (56%), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (14.05%), according to our study. A consistent and significant difference was found between S. maltophilia-positive ICU patients and non-ICU patients (P = 0.0017) during the three-year pandemic of COVID-19 (2019-2021). The prevalence of S. maltophilia isolates is expected to reach 15.08% [95% CI 12.58-17.59%] by 2030. Swift global action is needed to address this growing issue; healthcare authorities must set priorities and monitor infection escalations and treatment…

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: 4,466 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