Evidence Hub

Epidemiology and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of Gram-negative bacteria causing urinary tract infections in the Asia-Pacific region: 2009-2010 results from the Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART)

Lu PL, Liu YC, Toh HS, Lee YL, Liu YM, Ho CM, Huang CC, Liu CE et al.

International journal of antimicrobial agents, 2012

11 participants

Abstract

In 2009, the Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART) was expanded to include surveillance of Gram-negative pathogens causing urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the Asia-Pacific region. A total of 1762 isolates were collected from 38 centers in 11 countries from patients with UTIs in 2009 and 2010. In vitro susceptibilities were determined by the broth microdilution method and susceptibility profiles were determined using minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) interpretive criteria, as recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) in 2010 (M100-S20), in 2011 (M100-S21), and in 2012 (M100-S22). Enterobacteriaceae comprised 86.0% of the isolates, of which Escherichia coli (56.5%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (13.8%) were the two most common species. Amikacin was the most effective antibiotic (91.7%), followed by ertapenem (86.9%), imipenem (86.6%), and piperacillin-tazobactam (84.9%). Rates of susceptibility were 50.3% for cefoxitin and ranged from 50.3% to 74.2% for the third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins. For ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin, the susceptibility rates were 51.4% and 54.4%, respectively. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae comprised 28.2% of all isolates. We also found a high rate of resistance to carbapenems among Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa causing UTI. Interestingly, according to 2012 CLSI breakpoints, approximately 33.4% of ESBL producers were still…

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: 11 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