JavaScript NENÍ povolen !

Prosím povolte JavaScript.

Článek

PubMed

Záznam pochází z PubMed

Diagnostic and epidemiological landscape of anaerobic bacteria in Europe, 2020-2023 (ANAEuROBE)

International journal of antimicrobial agents. 2025 Jun ; 65 (6) : 107478. [epub] 20250228

Int J Antimicrob Agents
ISSN 1872-7913 | 0924-8579
Zdroj

Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko Médium print-electronic

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, multicentrická studie, pozorovací studie

Perzistentní odkaz https://www.medvik.cz/link/pmid40024606

PubMed 40024606
DOI 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2025.107478
PII: S0924-8579(25)00035-4
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje

Klíčová slova
Anaerobes, Antimicrobial resistance, Bacteroides, Blood culture, Clostridium, Sepsis,
MeSH
anaerobní bakterie * účinky léků izolace a purifikace klasifikace MeSH
antibakteriální látky farmakologie MeSH
bakteriální infekce * epidemiologie diagnóza mikrobiologie MeSH
lidé MeSH
mikrobiální testy citlivosti MeSH
retrospektivní studie MeSH
Check Tag
lidé MeSH
Publikační typ
časopisecké články MeSH
multicentrická studie MeSH
pozorovací studie MeSH
Geografické názvy
Evropa epidemiologie MeSH
Názvy látek
antibakteriální látky MeSH

INTRODUCTION: Despite being implicated in a wide spectrum of community- and healthcare-acquired infections, anaerobes have not yet been incorporated into systematic surveillance programs in Europe. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective observational study analysing all anaerobic strains isolated from blood cultures in 44 European Hospital Centres over a 4-y period (2020-2023). Diagnostic approach, epidemiology, and antimicrobial susceptibility according to EUCAST v. 15.0 were investigated. RESULTS: Our study included 14,527 anaerobes, most of which were Gram-positive (45%) or Gram-negative (40%) bacilli. MALDI-TOF coupled to mass spectrometry was the most widely used tool for species identification (98%). Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed in the vast majority of centres, using mostly gradient diffusion strip (77%) and disk diffusion (45%) methods according to EUCAST guidelines. The most prevalent species were Cutibacterium acnes (18.7%), Bacteroides fragilis (16.3%), Clostridium perfringens (5.3%), Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron (4.2%), Fusobacterium nucleatum (3.5%), and Parvimonas micra (3.4%). C. acnes showed high resistance to benzylpenicillin (18%), clindamycin (39%), and imipenem (19% and 13% by MIC methods and disk diffusion, respectively). B. fragilis showed high resistance to amoxicillin/clavulanate (24%), piperacillin/tazobactam (22% and 14% by MIC methods and disk diffusion, respectively), clindamycin (22% by both MIC methods and disk diffusion), meropenem (13%), and metronidazole (10%, only by disk diffusion). A similar resistance pattern was observed in B. thetaiotaomicron, Bacteroides ovatus, and Parabacteroides distasonis. C. perfringens showed high resistance to clindamycin (69% and 45% by MIC methods and disk diffusion, respectively), while benzylpenicillin and metronidazole maintained over 90% activity. F. nucleatum showed high resistance to benzylpenicillin (11%), while Fusobacterium necrophorum showed alarming rates of resistance to clindamycin (12%), meropenem (16%) and metronidazole (11%). CONCLUSIONS: This study presented an up-to-date analysis of the diagnostics and epidemiology of anaerobic bacteria in Europe, providing insights for future comparative analyses and the development of antimicrobial diagnostic and management strategies, as well as the optimization of current antibiotic treatments.

Diagnostic and epidemiological landscape of anaerobic bacteria in Europe, 2020-2023 (ANAEuROBE)

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace