Evidence Hub

Clinical and genomic characterization of Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in Dhaka, Bangladesh

Zannat Kawser, Sushmita Sridhar, Sanchita Kar, Tanbir Habib, Sharmin Aktar Mukta, Kasrina Azad, Neyamul Hasan, Umme Kulsum et al.

Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance, 2024

46 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Klebsiella pneumoniae (Kpn), a WHO priority pathogen with high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), has emerged as a leading cause of hospital acquired pneumonia and neonatal sepsis. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to define the clinical characteristics of a cohort of patients with Kpn infection in Dhaka, Bangladesh and to perform phenotypic and genetic characterization of the associated isolates. METHODS: We retrospectively extracted clinical data about patients at Dhaka Medical College Hospital from whom Klebsiella spp was isolated from a clinical specimen collected between February and September 2022. We used standard microbiologic techniques to evaluate AMR and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) to assess dominant lineages, common capsular (K) and O-polysaccharide (O) antigen types, and AMR and virulence genes. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included, with diagnoses of pneumonia (38/98, 39 %), wound infection (29/98, 31 %), urinary tract infection (29/98, 31 %) and bacteremia (2/98, 2 %). We tested isolates for susceptibility to eight classes of antibiotics. Of the 98 isolates, 41 % were multidrug resistant (MDR), 15 % were extensively drug resistant (XDR), and 16 % were pan-drug resistant (PDR). Three isolates (3 %) were resistant to polymyxin B. Outcome data were available for 46 patients; 4 patients (8 %) died from infections caused by PDR (n = 2), XDR (n = 1), and MDR isolates (n = 1). WGS revealed a high degree of genomic diversity, with multiple sequence types…

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: 46 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