https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8529-6194
Figures
Abstract
Background
Extended spectrum Beta-lactamases (ESBLs) and AmpC beta-lactamases (AmpC) are the common enzymes produced by gram negative bacilli, which are their main mechanisms of resistance to all generations of cephalosporins. Hence, this study aimed to determine the magnitude of ESBLs and AmpC producing gram negative bacilli (GNB) isolated from clinical specimens at International clinical Laboratories in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Methods
A cross sectional study was conducted from January to May 2018. From different clinical specimens, 338 GNB were isolated and characterized. Bacterial species identification, antimicrobial susceptibility testing and screening for ESBLs and AmpC production were performed using Phoenix automated system (BD phoenix100). ESBLs production was confirmed using a combination disc method. All Cefoxitin resistant and confirmed ESBLs producing GNB were confirmed for AmpC beta-lactamases production by AmpC confirmatory Neo-Sensitabs discs (ROSCO tablet). Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 software.
Results
E. coli 66.0% (224/338) followed by K. pneumoniae 12.1% (41/338) were GNB most frequently isolated. The overall magnitude of ESBLs producing GNB was 38.8% (131/338) and the extent of AmpC beta-lactamase producing GNB was 2.4% (8/338). Majority of ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamases producing GNB were isolated from urine specimens 47.5% (116/338). Ampicillin (75.4%), amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (64.0%) and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (55.6%) were most the antibiotics to which resistance was most commonly found. The multidrug resistance (MDR) level of GNB was 74.0% (250/338). Of ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamases producing GNB, 99.3% were MDR (p < 0.05).
Conclusion
The high magnitude of ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamases producing GNB calls the needs of strong intervention to minimize further occurrence and spread of such GNB. More importantly, the MDR level was high which suggests continuous monitoring & reviewing of antimicrobial policy in hospitals and the country at large.
Citation: Tekele SG, Teklu DS, Tullu KD, Birru SK, Legese MH (2020) Extended-spectrum Beta-lactamase and AmpC beta-lactamases producing gram negative bacilli isolated from clinical specimens at International Clinical Laboratories, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 15(11): e0241984. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241984
Editor: Grzegorz Wo?niakowski, University of Nicolaus Copernicus in Torun, POLAND
Received: April 10, 2020; Accepted: October 23, 2020; Published: November 12, 2020
Copyright: © 2020 Tekele et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The International Clinical Laboratories and Addis Ababa University covered the cost of Antibiotics disks, culture media and other supplies.
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in this research work.
List of abbreviations: CLSI, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; ICL, International Clinical Laboratories; ESBLs, Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases; AmpC, AmpC beta-lactamase; MDR, Multidrug Resistance; GNB, Gram negative bacilli; AST, Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing; EUCAST, European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; MIC, Minimum Inhibitory Concentration; ATCC, American Type Culture Collection
Background
Gram negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii are among the most important pathogens causing nosocomial and community acquired bacterial infections in humans. These bacteria are becoming resistant to many available antimicrobial agents which are a major public health threat nowadays [1, 2].
Beta-lactam antibiotics are the most commonly used antibiotics to treat infections caused by such multidrug resistant gram negative bacilli. However, resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics due to the production of beta-lactamases is becoming a worldwide threat. Antibiotic resistance can be developed when bacterial genes mutate continuously in response to overuse or misuse of beta-lactam antibiotics [3–5]. Although there are more than 1000 beta-lactamase enzymes, ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamases are the most common enzymes produced by GNB [6, 7].
ESBLs have the ability to hydrolyze most beta-lactam antibiotics such as cephalosporins, penicillins, aztreonam and related oxyimino beta-lactams except cephamycins (cefoxitin) and carbapenems which can only be inhibited by beta-lactamase inhibitors such as clavulanic acid [8]. ESBLs are most often produced by Klebsiella spp. and E. coli although Enterobacter spp, Citrobacter spp, Morganella spp, Serratia spp, Pseudomonas spp and other gram negative bacilli are also are ESBLs producers [9]. In addition, ESBLs producing isolates exhibit co-resistance to other classes of antibiotics such as aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones and sulfonamides [10].
Like ESBLs, the class C beta-lactamases (AmpC) are clinically significant because GNB which confer AmpC are also resistant to penicillin, cephalosporin, cephamycin and monobactam groups. In contrast to ESBL, AmpC beta-lactamase activity is not affected by ESBLs inhibitors [11]. AmpC beta-lactamase can be chromosomal or plasmid-mediated. Chromosomally mediated AmpC beta-lactamase are found in Serratia, Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Citrobacter and Enterobacter spp. Plasmid mediated AmpC beta-lactamase are commonly seen in Enterobacteriaceae including E. coli, K. pneumoniae, Salmonella spp., Citrobacter freundii, and Proteus mirabilis [12, 13].
An important additional issue is that, Amp-C producing GNB acts as a hidden reservoir for ESBLs. Therefore, co-existence of these enzymes complicates the treatment of GNB as Amp-C beta-lactams may mask the recognition of ESBLs [2]. The production of ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamases can be detected using conventional and automated techniques but automated systems such as Phoenix 100, Vitek-2, and MicroScan WalkAway 96 Plus are used for rapid identification of bacterial species and antimicrobial susceptibility testing in microbiology laboratories [14, 15].
In general, GNB that produce ESBLs and AmpC enzymes cause treatment difficulties and treatment failure, including morbidity and mortality. Therefore, detecting and determining the magnitude of ESBLs and AmpC is crucial for effective treatment and for prevention and control of these resistant bacteria. Additionally, adequate knowledge about the magnitude of ESBLs and AmpC is important to limit the spread and further prevalence of ESBLs and AmpC production in GNB. Hence, the present study aimed to determine the magnitude of ESBLs and AmpC producing GNB isolated from clinical specimens at International Clinical Laboratories in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Methods
A cross sectional study was conducted from January 2018 to May 2018 at International Clinical Laboratories (ICL) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ICL was established in 2004 and is one of the main clinical laboratories in Ethiopia which gives numerous services including microbiological analysis. Its microbiology department receives clinical specimens for microbiological analysis from different governmental and private hospitals in Addis Ababa. It is equipped with several automated machines including the Phoenix automated system that is used for bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. During the study period, a total of 338 GNB isolates were isolated from different clinical samples and included in this study for ESBLs and AmpC characterization and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.
The sample size was calculated based on single-population proportion using a previous study done in Ethiopia [16]. The socio-demographic data of patients was documented using the data collection sheet from the request form. The GNB isolates, the types of beta-lactamases and the antibiotics susceptibility pattern of the isolate were also recorded using a separate data collection sheet.
Isolation and identification of gram negative bacilli
The GNB isolates were obtained from various clinical specimens such as urine, pus, body fluids, sputum, stool, ear and eye discharges. The specimens were inoculated in to 5% sheep blood agar, XLD agar and MacConkey agar plates (all media were Oxoid Ltd, UK) and incubated at 37°C for 18–24 hours. Each bacterium was characterized by colony appearance, size, consistency, shape, ability to ferment lactose and gram stain. All bacterial species were characterized and identified to species level using the Phoenix system (BD Diagnostic Systems, Oxford, UK) by adjusting the turbidity of bacterial suspension to 0.5 McFarland standards inoculum density. Bacteria suspension was prepared from pure colonies grown on primary isolation media and inoculated to the appropriate phoenix panel [17].
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing for 17 antimicrobials namely ceftazidime, cefotaxime, cefuroxime, ciprofloxacin, ceftriaxone, cefepime, amoxicillin with clavulanic acid, amikacin, aztreonam, ertapenem, cefoxitin, gentamicin, imipenem, meropenem, ampicillin, sulfametoxazole-trimethoprim and piperacillin/ tazobactam was performed using Phoenix AST panel (AST-N94) that applies the microdilution method. The Phoenix machine also has a screening test for ESBL and AmpC beta-lactamase production among GNB [17].
Screening for ESBLs production
According to the CLSI guidelines, isolates that showed an MIC ≥2μg/ml for ceftazidime and/or for cefotaxime were considered as suspected for ESBL producer [18].
Confirmation of ESBLs production
A disc of ceftazidime (30 μg) and cefotaxime (30 μg) alone and in combination with clavulanic acid (30 μg/10 μg) and cefotaxime (30 μg) + clavulanic acid (30 μg/10 μg) were placed at a distance of 25 mm apart on a Muller Hinton agar plate inoculated with bacterial suspension of 0.5 McFarland turbidity standards and incubated overnight (18–24 hrs.) at 37°C. An increase in the inhibition zone diameter of ≥5 mm for a combination disc versus ceftazidime or cefotaxime disk alone was confirmed as ESBL producing bacilli according to CLSI (2018) guidelines [18].
Screening of AmpC production
Guided by EUCAST, isolates showing reduced susceptibility to cefoxitin (MIC >8 μg/ml) were identified as a potential AmpC beta-lactamase producer. In addition, all ESBLs suspected isolates were screened for confirmation [19].
Confirmation of AmpC production
All cefoxitin non-susceptible isolates and ESBLs suspected isolates were checked for the presence of AmpC beta-lactamase using disc diffusion tablets Neo-Sensitabs (ROSCO, Taastrupgaardsvej 30, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark) one tablet with cefotaxime, one with ceftazidime and two tablets of cephalosporins combined with cloxacillin (AmpC inhibitor). An increase in the inhibition zone diameter of ≥5 mm for a combination disc versus ceftazidime or cefotaxime disk alone was confirmed as AmpC beta-lactamase producing GNB [20].
Data quality assurance
After preparation, culture media was checked for sterility by incubating 5% of them overnight and observing them for the presence of any bacterial growth. Quality control for the Phoenix machine and prepared media was performed using standard ATCC control strains.
For ESBL testing, K. pneumoniae ATCC 700603 was used as a (positive control) and E. coli ATCC 25922 was used as a (negative control) strains. Enterobacter cloacae (ATCC BAA 1143) and E. coli (ATCC 25922) were used as positive and negative QC strains for AmpC beta-lactamase producing GNB respectively. Before applying the 20% glycerol TSB for storage, it was QC tested for growth of E. coli ATCC 25922 standard strains. Data was re-assessed for its completeness, adequate recoding on the worksheet and in the SPSS software after entry.
Data analysis and interpretation
Data was analyzed using SPSS version 20 software. Descriptive statistics were summarized in tables and graphs. Proportions and actual number of AmpC and ESBLs producing GNB isolates were used to describe frequency of categorical variables. Continuous variables were described by mean and standard deviation.
Ethical considerations
The study was conducted after obtaining ethical clearance from the research and ethical review committee of the department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, School of Allied Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences; Addis Ababa University (DRERC/335/18/MLS). Additionally, an official permission letter was obtained from the study site.
Results
Socio-demographic characteristics
During the study period, a total of 338 GNB isolates were isolated from various clinical specimens sent to ICL by government hospitals (n = 151) and private hospitals (n = 187). The majority of the GNB were isolated from urine 72.2% (244/338) followed by pus 18.6% (63/338) (Table 1).
Among the total isolates, 58.3% (n = 197/338) were isolated from female patients and 41.7% (n = 141/338) were collected from male patients. E. coli (68.5%) and K. pneumoniae (14.2%) were the most frequently isolated bacteria from females. The majority of isolates 86 (25.4%) were obtained from patients above 61 years of age. The mean age of patients was 43.9 years and standard deviation 21.8 years (Table 1).
Frequency of gram negative bacilli isolates
Among the total 338 GNB isolates, E. coli with 66.3% (224/338) was the most frequent isolates followed by K. pneumoniae with 12.1% (41/338). From the 224 E. coli isolates, 84.4% (189/224) were isolated from urine and 10.7% (24/224) were isolated from pus specimens. Among the non-fermenting GNB, Pseudomonas spp. were obtained from pus in 41.2% (7/17), from discharge in 29.4% (5/17) and from urine in 23.5% (4/17) (Table 1).
Antibiotics resistance pattern of gram negative bacilli isolates
For all isolates, drug susceptibility testing was performed using the automated Phoenix system which has a broth microdilution method that gives MIC. Highest resistance level was recorded to ampicillin (75.4%), amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (64.0%), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (55.6%), cefuroxime (48.2%) and cefotaxime (47.0%). E. coli showed the highest resistance to ampicillin (77.2%) followed by amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (67.9%). In K. pneumoniae isolates the highest level of resistance was observed against ampicillin (100%), amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (73.2%), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (70.7%), cefuroxime (65.9%) and aztreonam (63.4%). These isolates showed a lower resistance level to meropenem(9.8%), ertapenem (9.8%) and imipenem (12.2%).No resistance was observed to amikacin (0.0%) (Table 2).
Multi-drug resistance pattern of gram negative bacilli
Using the commonly used definition of multidrug resistance (MDR) as an organism being resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics, 74.0% (n = 250) of the 338 isolates were identified as MDR. A high average MDR level was recorded among Enterobacter spp.(90.9%,), Citrobacter spp.(90.0%), Acinetobacter spp.(88.9%), K. pneumoniae (82.9%)and E. coli (69.6%). While Pseudomonas spp. showed a 100% MDR level, no MDR was found in the K. oxytoca and K. ozaenae isolates. The most effective antibiotics for MDR Gram negative bacilli were amikacin (97.1%), meropenem (96.3%), and imipenem (95.5%) (Table 3).
Magnitude of ESBLs producing gram negative bacilli
From the total 338 isolated GNB, 135 were found to be suspicious for ESBLs production based on their MIC value of ≥2μg/ml for ceftazidime and/or cefotaxime as obtained from Phoenix system. Of these 135 GNB, 38.8% (131/338) of them were finally confirmed as ESBLs producers using the confirmatory combination disk method.
A higher percentage of ESBL producing GNB was identified in K. pneumoniae 56.1% (n = 23/41) followed by E. coli (44.6%, 100/224), E. cloacae (36.4%, 4/11) and Citrobacter spp. (10.0%, 1/10) (Fig 1). The majority of these ESBLs producing GNB were detected in urine specimens and the proportion of ESBLs was significantly high among isolates from adult patients above 61 years of age (p < 0.05).
Magnitude of AmpC producing gram negative bacilli
All ESBLs producers and cefoxitin resistant GNB were screened and confirmed for AmpC production. Of all tested Gram negative bacilli, 2.4% (8/338) were found to be AmpC beta-lactamase producers which are E. coli in 1.2% (4/338), K. pneumoniae in 0.9% (3/338) and Citrobacter spp. in 0.3% (1/338).
The highest frequency of AmpC beta-lactamase production was observed from K. pneumoniae 7.3% (3/41) followed by E. coli 1.8% (4/224).
Among the 80 GNB isolates that showed resistance to cefoxitin (MIC >16 μg/ml), 10% (8/80) of them were confirmed as AmpC producers. All AmpC beta-lactamase producing GNB were detected in urine specimens 3.3% (8/244) and in patients whose age group was above 61 years (40.1%).
The MDR level of each Gram negative bacillus in relation to their ESBLs and AmpC production is summarized below (Fig 1).
Distribution of ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamase producing gram negative bacilli with their MDR level among different specimens
From the specimens analyzed, ESBLs and/or AmpC producing GNB were found predominantly in urine 44.7% (109/244). The highest number of MDR isolates were found in wound specimens (81.0%, n = 51/249) (Table 4). Of ESBLs and/or AmpC producing GNB, 97.8% (n = 137/140) were MDR and only 1.4% (n = 2/140) was non-beta-lactamases producing MDR Gram negative bacilli due to other resistance mechanisms. Being beta-lactamases producer has statistically significant association with the occurrence of MDR (p = 0.001).
Association of independent variables with magnitude of ESBLs and AmpC producing gram negative bacilli
Analysis of data using logistic regression model showed that the magnitude of ESBLs or AmpC producing GNB had statistically significant association with age group and specimen type. However, there was no statistical significance between sex and health facilities for acquisition of beta-lactamase producing GNB (P>0.05). GNB isolate that are isolated from age group >61year are (95%, AOR = 1.151 (0.055–0.413), p = 0.001) times more likely to be ESBLs or AmpC producer than other age group. The chances of getting beta-lactamase positive among GNB which are isolated from urine specimens are (AOR = 8.015 (1.378, 46.630), P = 0.021) times higher than beta-lactamase producing GNB isolated from pus, body fluid and other specimen.
Antibiotics sensitivity pattern of ESBLs and AmpC producing gram negative bacilli
Overall non-ESBLs and/or AmpC producing GNB were more sensitive to tested antibiotics than ESBLs and/or AmpC producers. The most active drugs for ESBLs producing isolates were amikacin (100%), imipenem (99.2%), ertapenem (98.5%), meropenem (97.7%) and pipracillin/tazobactam (87.8%). Similarly, AmpC producing GNB showed high sensitivity to amikacin (100%), meropenem (100%), imipenem (87.5%), ertapenem (87.4%) and pipracillin/tazobactam (87.2%) (Fig 2).
Discussion
Antibiotics resistance pattern of gram negative bacilli
In the present study, the level of antimicrobial resistance of gram negative bacilli ranged from 0–75.4%. A higher resistance level was seen to ampicillin (75.4%), amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (64.0%), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (55.6%), aztreonam and cefuroxime (48.8%), cefotaxime (47.0%), cefepime (45.6%), ceftriaxone (44.9%) and ceftazidime (44.1%). Comparable results were reported from studies performed in Gondar [16] and Debre Markos [21] in Ethiopia. Compared to findings done in Tanzania [22], Iran [23] and Sierra Leon [24] that reported a resistance level of >90% for ampicillin, amoxicillin with clavulanic acid, sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim and ceftazidime, the resistance level recorded for these antibiotics in our study was a lowered finding that was <76%. Possible reasons for this difference can be the methods employed for antimicrobial testing, indiscriminate usage of antibiotics, patients condition and the nature of bacteria in these countries that were beta-lactamases producing bacteria in most cases.
Multi drug resistance pattern of gram negative bacilli
In the present study, the overall magnitude of MDR among all GNB isolates was 73.7%. There were similar results found in studies conducted in Gondar (68.0%) [25], Dessie (74.6%) [26] and Debre Markos: (72.2%) [21] in Ethiopia and also in Nepal (64.0%) [27]. Our study found a lowered MDR level than studies done in Gondar (87.4%) [16] and Bahir Dar (93.1%) [28] in Ethiopia and studies performed in Sierra Leone (85.7%) [24] and Nepal (96.8%) [29]. However, the magnitude of MDR we found among the GNB was higher than in previous studies done in Ethiopia (Jimma: 59.3%) [30] and Nepal (54.2%) [27]. The MDR level recorded in this study was considered as alarming because only a few treatment options remain for infections. Therefore, implementing strong infection control strategies is required to reduce the MDR burden.
The present study showed that Pseudomonas spp.(100%), Enterobacter spp. (90.0%) and Citrobacter spp (90.0%) were the commonest MDR isolates which is comparable to other studies done in Jimma in Ethiopia, 100% Citrobacter spp. [30] and in Nepal, 71.4% Enterobacter spp. [31]. Different studies showed different pathogens as predominant MDR isolates, K. pneumoniae (95.6%) and E. coli (92.9%) in Gondar in Ethiopia [16], K. pneumoniae (73.3%) and E. coli (61.5%) in Sierra Leone [23] and K. pneumoniae 100% and E. coli 95.5% in Nepal [29]. These pathogens are found in both hospital and community acquired infections. In addition, these bacteria are resistant to multiple groups of antimicrobial agents which makes treatment difficult [27].
Magnitude of ESBLs producing gram negative bacilli
The overall magnitude of ESBLs producing GNB in the present study was 38.8%, which was in line with studies reported from Ethiopia in Harar (33.3%) [32], Nepal (34.5%) [27], Spain (42.8%) [33] and India (44.0%) [34]. ESBLs producing organisms are the major cause of treatment failure, impaired clinical and microbiological responses, longer hospital stay and increased healthcare costs [35].
However, the magnitude of ESBLs production among GNB in our study was lower than in other studies done in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia (57.7%) [36], Bahir Dar in Ethiopia (57.6%) [28] and north West Nigeria (58.0%) [37], southwest Uganda (89%) [38] and southeast Iran (53.8%) [23]. This wide variation might be due to differences in study population, type of specimen, sample size and the extent of antibiotic use.
To the contrary, our finding was higher than compared with other studies findings in Ethiopia from Adama (25.0%) [39], Nigeria (15.8%) [40], Nepal (26.8%) [29] and Italy (6.3%) [41]. This indicated that ESBLs-producing organisms are increasing from time to time.
In the current study, the predominant ESBLs producing isolates were K. pneumoniae (56.1%) and E. coli (43.8%). This finding was supported by previous studies done in Ethiopia in Addis Ababa: K. pneumoniae in 78.6% and E. coli in 52.2% [36] and in Bahir Dar: K. pneumoniae in 69.8% and E. coli in 58.2% [28]. Researches in other African countries also isolated these bacteria as predominant ESBLs. The previously mentioned study in north west Nigeria identified: K. pneumoniae in 62.9% and E. coli in 54.2% [37], the study in southwest Uganda: K. pneumoniae in 52% and E. coli in 44% [38], a study in Nairobi, Kenya: K. pneumoniae in 78.8% and E. coli in 60.7% [42], a study done in Uganda: K. pneumoniae in 72.7% and E. coli in 58.1% [43]. On the other side, our finding was in contrast with studies conducted in Sri Lanka: E. coli in 86.8% and K. pneumoniae in 13.1% [44] and India: E. coli in 50.14% and K. pneumoniae in 48.3% [45]. In these studies, E. coli was the predominant ESBLs producer instead of K. pneumoniae.
Magnitude of AmpC producing gram negative bacilli
AmpC beta-lactamase producing GNB have been responsible for several nosocomial outbreaks and high rate of treatment failure [46].
In the present study, the magnitude of AmpC producing GNB was 2.4% (8/338). Studies done in Iran (1.5%) [47], Greek (2.6%) [48] and India (8%) [49] showed equivalent numbers. However, studies from Nigeria (15.2%) [46], Spain (14.2%) [33] and India (37%) [34] showed a higher number of AmpC-producing GNB. Reasons for these different findings might be related to detection methods employed, study participants, geographic area and AmpC genes prevalence difference.
In present study, K. pneumoniae (7.3%, 3/41) and E. coli (2.2%, 5/224) were the principal AmpC producing GNB. This was also found in a study conducted in Turkey [50] and Spain [33]. This might be related to the fact that plasmid mediated AmpC beta-lactamases are seen in Enterobacteriaceae and these genes are easily horizontally transferred [13].
The current study also demonstrated co-existence of ESBLs and AmpC enzymes in five isolates 3.6% (5/139). This finding was comparable with studied conducted in Nigeria (6.04%) [40], South India (4.4%) [2] and India (9.9%) [9]. Simultaneous production of ESBLs and AmpC enzymes in a bacterium causes false-negative confirmatory tests for ESBLs production, because existence of plasmid mediated AmpC beta-lactamase enzymes can mask the presence of ESBLs [51]. Therefore, simultaneous detection of these enzymes is important to prevent the chance of missing an ESBLs.
Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of ESBLs and AmpC producing gram negative bacilli
In the present study, the highest sensitivity level of ESBLs producing isolates was found to amikacin (100%), imipenem (99.2%), meropenem (97.7%), ertapenem (98.5%), piperacillin/tazobactam (87.0%) and cefoxitin (84.0%). This finding was in congruent with findings of other studies conducted in Ghana: 100% sensitive to meropenem [52], Nepal: imipenem (100%), piperacillin/tazobactam (93.3%), and amikacin (91.8%) [27], Sri Lanka: meropenem (95%), imipenem (73.7%) and amikacin (60.6%) [44] and India: imipenem (100%), piperacillin/tazobactam (89.3%), meropenem (87.5%), and amikacin (83.9%) [45].
The present study indicated that ESBLs producers had significant levels of resistance to third generation cephalosporines, penicillines and sulfonamides. Similar findings were observed in studies from Ethiopia (Adama), Uganda and Ghana [39, 43, 52]. Highest levels of resistance to ampicillin (99.2%), ceftazidime (98.5%), ceftriaxone (98.5%), amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (98.0%) and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (81.0%) observed in this study were also reported in other studies done in Nepal: amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (100%), India: ceftazidime (97%), ceftriaxone (76%) [53] and another study in India done by Shashwati et al, amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (89.3%), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (94.6%) [45].
Most of the AmpC producing GNB were resistant to the commonly used antibiotics which are known from several studies [40, 51, 54]. In our study, among cefoxitin resistance isolates, 10% (8/80) were AmpC producers which was in agreement with findings from studies done in Iran (5.1%) [47] and Turkey (8.7%) [50] but lower than findings from a study done in India (37.0%) [53]. The possible reasons for cefoxitin resistance in the absence of AmpC production might be due to other resistance mechanism like loose of permeability of porins [55].
The present study showed that AmpC producers were 100% sensitive to imipenem and meropenem (100%) but highly resistant to ampicillin (100%), amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (97.0%), ceftriaxone (89.0%), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (75.0%), ceftazidime (68.0%), and cefepime (50.0%). This finding was in line with a study conducted in Turkey which showed that AmpC producers were 100% sensitive to imipenem and meropenem, 92.0% to amikacin and that they were in 82.0% resistance to amoxicillin with clavulanic acid in 68.0% to ceftazidime and in 49.0% to cefepime [50], Likewise, AmpC producers were resistant to amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (77.9%) and ceftazidime (75.0%) in a Nigeria study [46] and to amoxicillin with clavulanic acid was (95.9%), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (82.9%), and ceftazidime (87.1%) in an Indian study [53]. AmpC producers seem susceptible to cephalosporins in-vitro but when cephalosporins are used in vivo, they result in treatment failure [56, 57]. Therefore, cephalosporins are not useful in treating infections caused by AmpC producing bacteria.
Distribution of ESBLs and AmpC producing gram negative bacilli in different specimens
The present study shows that ESBLs and/or AmpC producing GNB were predominantly found in urine (44.7%, 109/244) and in pus (34.9%, 22/63). This might be due to the larger number of urine and pus samples included in this study. In this study most ESBLs producers were found in urine. Similar findings were reported in several countries: northwest of Nigeria (63.5%) [37], Uganda 64.9% [43], Ghana 66.7% [52], Sierra Leone 64.3% [24] and India (52.3% and 35%) [45, 53]. Another study done in Adama, Ethiopia found pus as the major source of ESBLs producing GNB (53.0%) [39]. This difference is most likely related to the difference in the proportion of clinical specimens included, nature of study participants difference and risk factors.
All AmpC producing pathogens in our study were isolated from urine. Studies conducted in Turkey and Nigeria [50, 57] had equivalent findings. Isolates from sputum (50.0%) were the predominant producers of AmpC beta-lactamase in a study done in Nigeria by Ogefere et al [46]. This indicated that the prevalence of AmpC beta-lactamase may differs significantly among bacteria obtained from different clinical specimens [34].
Conclusion and recommendation
In this study, a higher magnitude of ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamases producing GNB was found. Majority of these beta-lactamase producing isolates were isolated from urine specimen. K. pneumoniae and E. coli were the most frequent identified ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamase producing gram negative bacilli. These ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamases producing isolates showed a high MDR level and were resistant for most available antibiotics. The most effective antibiotics for treatment of the identified gram negative ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamases producers were amikacin, meropenem and imipenem. The occurrence of ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamases requires strengthening of the antimicrobial resistance surveillance system and an effective antibiotic policy involving antibiotic restriction, combination therapy and infection control programs combined with good medical practices. Additionally, large scale studies that can assess the magnitude of ESBLs and AmpC beta-lactamases producers from a wider geographical perspective with more representative samples need to be done in the country.
Supporting information
S2 Data. Survey of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase and AmpC beta-lactamases producing gram negative bacilli isolated from clinical specimens at International Clinical Laboratories, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241984.s002
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge International Clinical Laboratories for the support of supplies to conduct this research. Our gratitude goes to Addis Ababa University for supporting this study. We would also like to extend our thanks Dr. Marrigje Jacoba Kreuger for her review of the manuscript and editing the English language.
References
- 1. Paterson DL. Resistance in gram negative bacteria: Enterobacteriaceae. The Amer. J. of med. 2006; 119 (6):S20–S8.
- 2. Rao MJ, Harle S, Padmavathy M. Prevalence of Extended Spectrum Beta-lactamases and AmpC beta-lactamases in clinical isolates of gram-negative bacilli at a tertiary care hospital. J. Evolution Med. Dent.2018; 7(39): 2278–4748.
- 3. Ghadiri H, Vaez H, Khosravi S, Soleymani E. The antibiotic resistance profiles of bacterial strains isolated from patients with hospital-acquired bloodstream and urinary tract infections. Critical care research and practice. 2012; 2012. pmid:23304471
- 4. Gupta S, Maheshwari V. Prevalence of ESBLs among Enterobacteriaceae and their Antibiotic Resistance Pattern from Various Clinical Samples. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 2017; 6(9): 2620–2628.
- 5. Pasteran F, Mendez T, Guerriero L, Rapoport M, Corso A. Sensitive screening tests for suspected class A carbapenemase production in species of Enterobacteriaceae. J clin microbiol. 2009; 47(6):1631–1639. pmid:19386850
- 6. Bush K, Fisher JF. Epidemiological expansion, structural studies, and clinical challenges of new beta-lactamases from gram negative bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2011; 65:455–78. pmid:21740228
- 7. Doddaiah V, Anjaneya D. Prevalence of ESBL, AmpC and carbapenemase among gram negative bacilli isolated from clinical specimens. Amer J Life Sci.2014; 2(2): 76–81.
- 8. Lee JH, Bae IK, Lee SH. New Defnitions of Extended-Spectrum b-Lactamase ConferringWorldwide EmergingAntibiotic Resistance. Medicinal Research Reviews. 2011.
- 9. Grover CN, Sahni BA, Bhattacharya C. Therapeutic challenges of ESBLS and AmpC beta-lactamase. Medical Journal Armed Forces India. 2013; 69: 4–10. pmid:24532926
- 10. Rawat D, Nair D. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in Gram Negative Bacteria. J Glob Infect Dis. 2010; 2:263–274. pmid:20927289
- 11. Bush K, Jacoby GA. Updated Functional Classification of beta-Lactamases. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010 Mar 1; 54(3): 969–976. pmid:19995920
- 12. Jacoby GA. AmpC beta-lactamases. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009; 22(1):161–182 pmid:19136439
- 13. Philippon A, Arlet G, Jacoby GA. Plasmid-determined AmpC type beta-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002; 46(1):1–11. pmid:11751104
- 14. Fisher MA, Stamper PD, Hujer KM, Love Z, Croft A, Cohen S, et al. Performance of the Phoenix bacterial identification system compared with disc diffusion methods for identifying ESBL, AmpC and KPC producers. J med microbiol. 2009; 58(6):774–8.
- 15. Sanguinetti M, Posteraro B, Spanu T, Ciccaglione D, Romano L, Fiori B et al. Characterization of Clinical Isolates of Enterobacteriaceae from Italy by the BD Phoenix Extended-Spectrum beta-lactamase Detection Method. J Clin Microbiol. 2003; 1463–1468. pmid:12682131
- 16. Eshetie S, Unakal C, Gelaw A, Ayelign B, Endris M, Moges F. Multidrug resistant and carbapenemase producing Enterobacteriaceae among patients with urinary tract infection at referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. Antimicrob resist & infect cont. 2015; 4(1):12.
- 17.
BD phoenix 100 manual [20 Oct 2017]. available at: https://www.bd.com//DS_IDS_Phoenix-automatedmicrobiology-sys].
- 18.
CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing.Vol. 26th ed., CLSI supplement M100S.Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2018.
- 19. EUCAST. EUCAST guidelines for detection of resistance mechanisms and specific resistances of clinical and / or epidemiological importance. Eur Soc Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018;Version 2:1–40.
- 20.
Rosco AmpC insert kit [23 Oct 2017]. available at: http://www.eurobio.fr/images/Image/File/rosco/kit_esbl_rosco.pdf].
- 21. Mulu W, Abera B, Yimer M, Hailu T, Ayele H, Abate D. Bacterial agents and antibiotic resistance profiles of infections from different sites that occurred among patients at Debre Markos Referral Hospital, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Res Notes.2017; 10(1):254. pmid:28683780
- 22. Mushi MF, Mshana SE, Imirzalioglu C, Bwanga F. Carbapenemase genes among multidrug resistant gram negative clinical isolates from a Tertiary Hospital in Mwanza, Tanzania. BioMed Research International.2014; 2014: 6. pmid:24707481
- 23. Mansouri S, Abbasi S. Prevalence of multiple drug resistant clinical isolates of Extended-Spectrum Beta-lactamase Producing Enterobacteriaceae in Southeast Iran. Iran J Med Sci. June 2015; 35(2): 101–108.
- 24. Leski TA, Taitt CR, Bangura U, Stockelman MG, Ansumana R, Cooper WH et al. High prevalence of multidrug resistant Enterobacteriaceae isolated from outpatient urine samples but not the hospital environment in Bo, Sierra Leone. BMC Infectious Disease. 2016; 16 (1):167.
- 25. Moges F MG, Genetu G. Multiple drug resistance in urinary pathogens at Gondar College of medical sciences hospital, Ethiopia. East Afric Med J. 2002; 79(8):415–420.
- 26. Kibret M, Abera B, Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of E. coli from clinical sources in northeast Ethiopia. African Health Science. 2011;11(3):40–45. pmid:22135643
- 27. Nepal K, Pant ND, Neupane B, Belbase A, Baidhya R, Shrestha RK et al. Extended spectrum beta-lactamase and metallo beta-lactamase production among Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from different clinical samples in a tertiary care hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob.2017; 16(1):62. pmid:28927454
- 28. Abera B, Kibret M, Mulu W. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases and antibiogram in Enterobacteriaceae from clinical and drinking water sources from Bahir Dar city, Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2016; 11(11):1–10.
- 29. Yadav KK, Adhikari N, Khadka R, Pant AD, Shah B. Multidrug resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing Escherichia coli: a cross-sectional study in National Kidney Center, Nepal. Antimicrob Res and Inf Cont.2015; 4(1):42. pmid:26504518
- 30. Godebo G, Kibru G, Tassew H. Multidrug resistant bacterial isolates in infected wounds at Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia. Ann Cli Micro & Ant. 2013; 12(1):17.
- 31. Lamichhane B, Thakur C, Jain SK. Antibiotic resistance patterns of gram negative isolates in a tertiary care hospital of Nepal. Asian J Pharm Clin Res, 2014; 7(3): 30–33.
- 32. Seid J, Asrat D. occurrence of extended spectrum beta-lactamase enzymes in clinical isolates of Klebsiella species from Harar region, Eastern Ethiopia. J Acta Tropica.2005; 95(2): 143–148. pmid:15993831
- 33. Gómara-Lomero MM, López-Calleja AI, Vela Iglesia BM, Cerón IF, López AR, Pinilla MJ. Detection of carbapenemases and other mechanisms of enzymatic resistance to beta-lactams in Enterobacteriaceae with diminished susceptibility to carbapenems in a tertiary care hospital. Enferm Infec Microbiol Clin. 2018; 36(5): 296–301.
- 34. Shivanna V, Rao A. Detection of co-existence of beta-lactamases in gram negative bacteria using disc potentiation tests. Indian J Microbiol Res. 2017; 4(1):64–67.
- 35. Lautenbach E, Patel JB. Bilker WB, Edelstein PH, Fishman NO. Extended spectrum beta-lactamases producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Risk factors for infection and impact of resistance on outcomes. 2001; 32(15): 1162–71.
- 36. Teklu DS, Negeri AA, Legese MH, Bedada TL, Woldemariam HK, Tullu KD. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase production and multi-drug resistance among Enterobacteriaceae isolated in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control. 2019; 8:39. pmid:30815254
- 37. Ibrahim Y, Sani Y, Saleh Q, Saleh A, Hakeem G. Phenotypic Detection of Extended Spectrum Beta-lactamase and Carbapenemase co-producing clinical isolates from Two Tertiary Hospitals in Kano, North West Nigeria. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2017; 27(1):3010. pmid:28458485
- 38. Andrew B, Kagirita A, Bazira J. Prevalence of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases-Producing Microorganisms in Patients Admitted at KRRH, Southwestern Uganda. Int J Microb. 2017; 2017: 5. pmid:28270849
- 39. Mulisa G SL, Tilaye W, Jarso G, Shiferew T, Zewdu A et al. Prevalence of Extended Spectrum Beta-lactamase Producing Enterobacteriaceae: A cross sectional study at Adama Hospital, Adama, Ethiopia. J Emerg Infect Dis. 2016; 1(1):2–6.
- 40. Yusuf I, Haruna M. Detection of AMPC and ESBL Producers among Enterobacteriaceae in a Tertiary Health Care in, Kano- Nigeria. Int J Sci and Tech. 2013; 3:220–225.
- 41. Spanu T, Luzzaro F, Perilli M, Amicosante G, Toniolo A, Fadda G. Occurrence of Extended-Spectrum beta-Lactamases in Members of the Family Enterobacteriaceae in Italy: Implications for Resistance to beta-Lactams and other antimicrobial drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002; 46(1):196–202. pmid:11751134
- 42. Magale HI, Kassim IA, Odera SA, Omolo MJ, Jaoko WG, Jolly PE. Antibiotic susceptibility of organisms causing urinary tract infection in patients presenting at Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi. East Afr Med J. 2016; 2:5.
- 43. Kateregga JN, Kantume R, Atuhaire C, Lubowa MN, Ndukui JG. Phenotypic expression and prevalence of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae in samples collected from patients in various wards of Mulago Hospital, Uganda. BMC Pharma and Toxic. 2015; 16 (1):14.
- 44. Fernando MM, Luke WA, Miththinda JA, Wickramasinghe RD, Sebastiampillai BS, Gunathilake MP et al. Extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing organisms causing urinary tract infections in Sri Lanka and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern–A hospital based cross sectional study. BMC Infectious Disease.2017; 17 (1):138. pmid:28187754
- 45. Shashwati N, Kiran T, Dhanvijay AG. Study of Extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae and antibiotic co-resistance in a tertiary care teaching hospital. J Natural Science, Biology and Medicine. 2014; 5 (1):30.
- 46. Ogefere HO, Osikobia JG, Omoregie R. Prevalence of AmpC beta-lactamase among gram negative bacteria recovered from clinical specimens in Benin City, Nigeria. Trop J Pharm Res, 2016; 15(9): 1947.
- 47. Farrokhnazar E, Bidhendi SM, and Karimi S. Prevalence of AmpC type Extended spectrum beta-lactamases genes in clinical Samples of E. coli isolated from Poultry and Humans. Int J Med Res Health Sci. 2016; 5(7):83–93.
- 48. Gazouli M, Touvelekis LS, Vatopoulos AC, Tzelepi E. Transferable class C beta-lactamases in E. coli strains isolated in Greek hospitals and characterization of two enzyme variants (LAT-3 and LAT-4) closely related to Citrobacter fruindii AmpC beta-lacatamse. J Antimicrob chemo. 1998; 42: 419–425.
- 49. Singhal S, Mathur T, Khan S, Upadhyay DJ, Chugh S, Gained R, et al. Evaluation of methods for AmpC beta-lactamase in gram negative clinical isolates from tertiary care hospitals. Indian J MedMicrob.2005; 23 (2):120–124. pmid:15928443
- 50. Yilmaz MO, Agus A, Bozcal E, Oner O, Uzel A. Detection of plasmid-mediated AmpC beta-lactamase in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella Pneumoniae. Indian J Medical Microbiol. 2013; 31(1): 53–59. pmid:23508430
- 51. Shahandeh Z, Sadighian F, Rekabpou KB. Phenotypic study of Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, AmpC and Carbapenemase among E. coli clinical isolates in affiliated hospitals of Babol University of Medical Sciences. Int J Health Syst and Dis Manag. 2015; (3): 2.
- 52. Nkrumah NO, Danso KT, Krogfelt KA, Newman MJ. High Levels of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases in a Major Teaching Hospital in Ghana: The Need for Regular Monitoring and Evaluation of Antibiotic Resistance. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2013; 89(5): 960–964. pmid:24043693
- 53. Tewari R, Mitra SD, Ganaie F, Venugopal N, Das S, Shome R et al. Prevalence of extended spectrum beta-lactamase, AmpC beta-lactamase and metallo beta-lactamase mediated resistance in Escherichia coli from diagnostic and tertiary healthcare centers in south Bangalore, India. Int J Res Med Sci. 2018; 6(4):1308–1313.
- 54. Mohamudha PR, Harish BN, Parija SC. AMPC beta-lactamases among gram negative clinical isolates from a tertiary hospital, South India. Brazilian J. Microb. 2010; 41 (3): 596–602.
- 55. Peter-Getzlaff S, Polsfuss S, Poledica M, Hombach M, Giger J, Bottger EC et al. Detection of AmpC Beta-Lactamase in Escherichia coli: Comparison of three phenotypic confirmation assays and genetic analysis. J Clin Microb, Aug. 2011; 49(8): 2924–2932. pmid:21653764
- 56. Thakur S, Pokhrel N, Sharma M. Prevalence of multidrug resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing Escherichia Coli in urinary tract infection. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci. 2013; 4(2):1615.
- 57. Yusuf I, Haruna M, Yahaya H. Prevalence and Antibiotic susceptibility of AmpC and ESBL producing clinical isolates at a tertiary health care center in Kano, Northwest Nigeria. Afr J Cln. Exper. Microbiol.2017; 14(2): 109–119.