Evidence Hub

A case of hospital-acquired pneumonia associated with Chryseobacterium indologenes infection in a patient with HIV infection and review of the literature

Vincenza Chiara Mazzola, Eleonora Bono, L. Pipitò, Benedetta Romanin, C. Gioe', Anthony D. Anastasia, Sara Cannella, R. Virruso et al.

AIDS Research and Therapy, 2025

4 citations

Abstract

Background: Chryseobacterium indologenes is an opportunistic, multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacillus increasingly recognized as a cause of hospital-acquired infections, particularly in immunocompromised patients. Although rare, its intrinsic resistance to beta-lactams and its ability to colonize medical devices pose significant therapeutic challenges.

Case presentation: We describe a case of C. indologenes hospital-acquired pneumonia in a 43-year-old HIV-positive patient with multiple comorbidities, including Kaposi sarcoma, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease requiring hemodialysis. The patient was initially admitted with fever and elevated inflammatory markers, and empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy was initiated. Despite initial improvement, the patient developed respiratory failure, requiring oxygen therapy. A respiratory panel identified Rhinovirus, while sputum culture revealed C. indologenes, resistant to multiple antibiotics but susceptible to levofloxacin. Targeted therapy led to clinical improvement. However, the course was complicated by Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea, followed by fatal sepsis due to Klebsiella pneumoniae. Our review of the literature identified 71 reported cases, with bacteremia (51%) and pneumonia (29%) as the most common clinical presentations. Medical devices and prolonged antibiotic exposure were key risk factors. While C. indologenes is intrinsically resistant to beta-lactams and carbapenems,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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