https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9678-5513
Figures
Abstract
Background
Acinetobacter baumannii, the first human pathogen to be designated as a "red-alert" pathogen, is on the critical priority list of pathogens requiring new antibiotics. Biofilm-associated diseases are the most common infections caused by the antibiotic-resistant bacteria A. baumannii. Multidrug-resistant strains are more easily transmitted around the world due to A. baumannii’s ability to produce biofilms, which allows it to develop antibiotic resistance mechanisms and thrive in healthcare environments. As a result, A. baumannii infections are becoming increasingly common in hospital settings allover the world. As a result, a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to determine the global prevalence of biofilm-producing A. baumannii clinical isolates.
Methods
Articles were extensively searched in bibliographic databases and grey literatures using entry terms or phrases. Studies meeting eligibility criteria were extracted in MS Excel and exported into STATA version 12 software for statistical analysis. A random-effects model was used to compute the pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A. baumannii clinical isolates. The heterogeneity was quantified by using the I2 value. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger’s test. Sensitivity analysis was done to assess the impact of a single study on pooled effect size.
Result
Of the 862 studies identified, 26 studies consisted of 2123 A.baumannii clinical isolates of which 1456 were biofilm-producing. The pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A.baumannii clinical isolates was 65.63% (95% CI = 56.70%-74.56%). There was substantial heterogeneity with an I2 value of 98.1%. Moreover, 41.34%, 33.57%, and 27.63% of isolates of strong, mild, and weak producers of biofilm. Higher prevalence was found in studies published after 2014 (66.31%); Western Pacific region (76.17%); and Asia (66.22%) followed by the African continent (57.29%).
Conclusion
The pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A. baumannii clinical isolates has risen alarmingly, posing a public health risk. This indicates the burden of biofilm-producing A. baumannii infections urges routine screening and appropriate treatment for better management of hospitalized patients, as well as effective controlling of the emergence of drug resistance. Furthermore, this finding is an alert call for the stakeholders to develop strong infection prevention and antibiotics stewardship programs for the prevention and control of biofilm-producing bacterial infections.
Citation: Gedefie A, Alemayehu E, Mohammed O, Bambo GM, Kebede SS, Kebede B (2023) Prevalence of biofilm producing Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 18(11): e0287211. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287211
Editor: Iddya Karunasagar, Nitte University, INDIA
Received: August 28, 2022; Accepted: June 1, 2023; Published: November 30, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Gedefie 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 paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Abbreviations: ICU, Intensive Care Unit; IPC, Infection Prevention and Control; MDR, Multiple Drug-Resistant; WHO, World Health Organization
1. Background
Acinetobacter baumannii is an opportunistic and emerging global antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacterium that emerged as a clinically relevant pathogen causing biofilm-associated infections such as ventilator-associated pneumonia and catheter-related infection, both of which are resistant to antibiotic therapy as well as a wide range of nosocomial infection outbreaks, community-acquired infections, or war- and natural disaster-related infections [1]. A. baumannii is a “red-alert” human pathogen listed as the first pathogen on the critical priority list of pathogens for novel antibiotics. It is also an ESKAPE pathogen (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter species) [1,2].
A. baumannii causes a multitude of infections such as bacteremia, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, meningitis, and wound infection. Severe hospital-acquired infections are the predominant infections, particularly in the ICU [3]. Evidence also showed that the mortality rate for A. baumannii infected ICU patients ranges from 45 to 60%, and it can reach over 80% when these organisms exhibit widespread drug resistance [4]. The therapeutic options available for the treatment of infections caused by multiple drug-resistant (MDR) A. baumannii strains are still insufficient [5,6]. Thus, public health is currently seriously endangered by the rapidly spreading multidrug resistance in A. baumannii. The situation has become increasingly extreme in recent years due to an ongoing rise in MDR, extensive drug-resistant (XDR), and pan-drug-resistant (PDR) A. baumannii nosocomial isolates, some of which are even resistant to tigecycline and colistin, the last-resort medications in therapeutic protocols [7].
A. baumannii’s recent fast emergence as a multidrug-resistant strain has seriously harmed public health. By adhering to various biotic and abiotic surfaces, such as vascular catheters, cerebrospinal fluid shunts, or foleys catheters, Acinetobacter can easily live and spread in the hospital environment because of its propensity to form biofilms [8]. Biofilm formation is a complex process and is regulated by a variety of factors such as biofilm-associated protein (Bap), synthesis and assembly of pili; Outer membrane protein A (OmpA); biofilm growth-associated repressor (BigR). There is a connection between biofilm development and antimicrobial resistance, as evidenced by the fact that several biofilm-associated genes influence antimicrobial susceptibility [9–12]. All of these elements work together to both directly and indirectly contribute to the growth of anti-microbial medication resistance and biofilm formation.
A. baumannii is the most prevalent opportunistic pathogen in clinical samples, and because it may colonize hospitals and acquire resistance, it causes nosocomial infections that are challenging to treat [13]. Production of biofilm on invasive devices is a potent protection mechanism that is beneficial for both bacterial protection and the exchange of resistance genes among the participating cells. Furthermore, biofilm formation also heightens pathogenicity, exceptional drug resistance, treatment complications, facilitates bacterial colonization and survival traits in A. baumannii in hospitals and medical equipment [14]. Thus, biofilm-producing A.baumannii isolates are resistant to most antimicrobials, however, few effective treatments exist which will worsen the spread of the bacterium in a hospital environment as a result of biofilm formation on surfaces and the expression of multidrug resistance [15].
Generally, infections due to A. baumannii can be associated with a multitude of clinical challenges. Thus, infection control practice initiatives for the prevention of healthcare-acquired infections have been implemented. Moreover, comprehensive data is quite important for evidence-based decisions both in the clinical and public health areas. However, epidemiological information is still scarce, especially on the emergence of challenging biofilm-producing clinical isolates. Therefore, to resolve serious health crises with high socio-economic costs, evidence-based practices are quite essential. Therefore, knowing the epidemiology is critical to taking further preventive measures, designing alternative mitigation activities, and reducing its further spread and complications. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis are aimed at synthetically analyzing the prevalence of biofilm-producing A. baumannii clinical isolates.
2. Methods
2.1. Design and protocol registration
This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to estimate the global pooled prevalence of A. baumannii. The result was reported based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) [16] (See Supporting information). The review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO) under registration number CRD42022344156
2.2. Data source and search strategy
All articles regarding A. baumannii infection had been retrieved via a scientific search of electronic databases which includes PubMed/crucial, web of science, research Gate, and Scopus from May 10 to May 30, 2022. In addition to accounting for the studies’ omission during electronic database searches, a direct Google search was carried out using listed references in included articles.
The comprehensive and extensive searching strategy has been employed using condition, context, population, and outcome of interest (CoCoPop) formulating questions and searching terms were (“global”), (“worldwide”) and (‘‘prevalence”), (“epidemiology”) (“magnitude”), and (“biofilm”), (“A. baumannii”), (“Acinetobacter baumannii”) and (“Acinetobacter species”). The search terms were combined using the Boolean operators "OR" and "AND" to fit the advanced searching of articles.
2.3. Study selection and quality assessment for risk of bias
Three independent authors (AG, EA, GM) identified the articles from databases and other sources. Duplicates were removed and four independent reviewers continued to screen the title and abstract of all potentially eligible studies. Then, the full text of potentially eligible studies that reported the prevalence or epidemiology of biofilm-producing A.baumannii infection was added to the collections for extraction. Disagreements between two independent reviewers (AG and EA) were settled by GM to reach a consensus. The quality of the articles was carefully assessed by three authors (AG, EA, GM). The full texts of the articles were used to determine whether the study met the selection criteria or whether the eligibility of the article was in doubt. The Joanna Brigg Institute (JBI) quality assessment manual was used to assess the methodological validity of each study design [17]. Using the critical appraisal checklists, studies were reviewed and articles with an average score of 50% to 75% were considered as good quality while greater than 75% score was defined as high quality. Thus, articles with both good and high quality were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Moreover, study qualities were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality scale for cross-sectional studies [18].
2.4. Eligibility criteria
Original articles that reported the biofilm-producing A.baumannii clinical isolates across the globe were included. Studies reported only in English were included. On the other hand, studies reporting the biofilm-producing A.baumannii infection among environmental isolates were excluded. Furthermore, review articles, case reports, and letters to the editor were also excluded.
2.5. Outcome variables
The outcome variable for this study is the global pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A.baumannii clinical isolates.
2.6. Data extraction
Data from the eligible studies were extracted by four reviewers (AG, EA, GM, and SS) independently in Microsoft Excel sheets. The information extracted from each study includes the name of the first author, publication year, WHO region, continent, number of A. baumannii isolates, and diagnostic methods of biofilm detection.
2.7. Statistical analysis
The data extraction was done using a Microsoft Excel worksheet and the meta-analysis was done by using STATA version 12 with metan commands. The point estimate and 95% confidence interval of the prevalence of biofilm-producing A.baumannii clinical isolates for the studies fulfilling inclusion criteria were calculated. Due to the high heterogeneity reported, the national pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A.baumannii clinical isolates was calculated using a random effect model. DerSimonian Laird method was used to estimate the between-study variance. The Cochrane’s Q test and I2 statistics which provide an estimate of the percentage of variability in effect estimates that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance alone were used to assess the heterogeneity [19]. A p-value of < 0.005 was used to declare significant heterogeneity. Therefore, a random effect model was used to adjust the observed variability. Publication bias was assessed by visual observation of the symmetry of the funnel plot and Egger’s test statistics [20,21]. Sensitivity analysis was done to assess the impact of a single study on the overall pooled effect size. Subgroup analysis for the primary outcome was performed by publication year, WHO region, continent, and biofilm detection method.
3. Result
3.1. Description and search results of included articles
A total of 862 articles were retrieved from PubMed, Cochrane library, google scholar, Scopus, web of science, psych info, and African online archives. Six hundred and forty-two articles remained after removing 220 duplicate articles. From the remaining, 607 articles were excluded after reviewing the title, abstract, and objective of the study. Finally, 35 full-length articles were thoroughly reviewed by predetermined eligibility criteria, and 26 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA checklist 2009) were followed (Fig 1: Flow diagram for the selection of eligible studies) [16]. A total of 26 globally published articles with 2,123 A.baumannii clinical isolates were included in qualitative and quantitative meta-analyses, respectively. Of the total clinical isolates of A.baumannii, 1,456 were biofilm-producing isolates. The number of A.baumannii clinical isolates reported in studies ranged from 10 to 272 while biofilm-producing A.baumannii clinical isolates ranged from 4 to 249. The studies were conducted on three continents such as Asia, Africa, and South America. Of the 26 studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, 21 studies were conducted in Asian countries. Twenty-three studies were conducted from 2015 to 2021 while the rest were conducted from 2008 to 2014. Based on the WHO region, 10 studies were done in Eastern Mediterranean countries followed by 7 studies in South- Asian countries (Table 1).
3.2. Pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A.baumannii clinical isolates
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the global prevalence of biofilm-producing A.baumannii clinical isolates was 65.63% (95% CI = 56.70%-74.56%). Overall, the prevalence of biofilm-producing A.baumannii among the global population was variable, ranging from 10.81% reported from Iraq to 99.04% reported from China. There was substantial heterogeneity with an I2 of 98.1% (Fig 2: Forest plot showing the global prevalence of biofilm producing A.baumannii from2008-2021).
Subgroup analysis was done by publication year, continent, and WHO region. The global pooled prevalence rate of biofilm formation from 2015–2021 was 66.31% (95% CI: 56.86–75.75) as indicated in Fig 3. There was high heterogeneity with I2 of 98.2% among studies conducted between 2015 &2021 and there was no significant heterogeneity between the group (P = 0.446) (Table 2).
Based on the existing available evidence, the pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A.baumannii infection based on the continent of the studies showed that higher prevalence was found in Asia followed by Africa and the least was South America. The pooled prevalence of biofilm producing A.baumannii infection in Asia and Africa was 66.22% (95% CI:59.18–77.25) and 57.29% (95%CI:28.89–85.70), respectively. There was high heterogeneity among Asian studies and African studies with I2 of 97.9% (P = 0.000) and 95.6% (P = 0.000), respectively. However, there was no heterogeneity among South American studies with I2 of 0.0% (P = 0.883) as indicated in Table 2. Moreover, there was significant overall heterogeneity between subgroups i.e between continents (P = 0.0037) (Table 2).
Another subgroup analysis was done by the WHO region of studies. Studies from the Eastern Mediterranean region, Southeast Asian region, American and Western Pacific region were used for subgroup analysis. The higher prevalence (76.17%) of biofilm-producing A.baumannii infection was found in the Western Pacific region and the least prevalence (51.64%) was found in the American region. There was high heterogeneity among Western Pacific and Eastern Mediterranean regions with I2 of 97% and 98.9%, respectively. There was no heterogeneity among studies of the American region with I2 of 0.0% (P = 0.883). Moreover, there was significant overall heterogeneity between subgroups i.e between regions of WHO (P = 0.020) (Table 2).
Based on the laboratory method used for the detection of biofilm, studies done by the microtiter plate technique revealed 70.42% (95% CI = 60.99–79.85, P<0.0001) pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A.baumannii with a substantially high level of heterogeneity with I2 of 97.8% (P <0.001). Moreover, there was no significant overall heterogeneity between subgroups i.e between types of biofilm detection methods (P = 0.073). Regarding the degree of biofilm; 41.34% (95% CI = 26.99–55.70, P<0.0001), 33.57% (95% CI = 23.97–43.18, P<0.0001), 27.63% (95% CI = 18.34–36.93, P<0.0001) of isolates of A.baumannii were strong, mild, and weak producers of biofilm. There was a higher heterogeneity of subgroups among the degree of biofilm despite there was no existing heterogeneity between groups (P = 0.278) (Table 2).
3.3. Sensitivity analysis
Each study did not affect the pooled estimate of the proportion indicating the precise aggregate result. When individual studies were omitted, the pooled effect size lay within the 95% confidence interval of the overall pooled effect size. This confirmed the absence of a single study impact on the overall pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A.baumannii infection (Table 3).
3.4. Publication bias
The funnel plot was used to assess the impact of the small-studies effect or publication bias on estimated pooled prevalence. The graph of the funnel plot becomes asymmetrical indicating the presence of publication bias (Fig 3: Funnel plot showing publication bias).
Furthermore, Egger’s test statistics confirmed the presence of marginally significant publication bias at a P-value < 0.001 (Table 4).
3.5. Trim and fill analysis
Trim and fill analysis for each was conducted however trimming was not performed which will bring the data to be changed and the total number of studies remained at 26. The pooled proportion of biofilm producing A.baumannii clinical isolates was 65.63% at p-value < 0.001 (Hence, trim and fill analysis was performed (Table 5).
4. Discussion
In humans, an estimated 65% to 80% of microbial infections of all hospital infections are of biofilm origin. Once established, biofilm infections are very difficult to eradicate due to their resilience to removal by host defense mechanisms and antimicrobials [46]. This can be associated with the emergence of an alarming increment of multidrug-resistant strain that has seriously harmed public health. The present study revealed that the global pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A.baumannii infection was 65.63% (95% CI = 56.70%-74.56%). The present comprehensive study finding showed that nearly seven in every ten A.baumannii infected patients had a probability of developing biofilm. Compared with the previous finding, the present finding was lower than the 90.5% pooled biofilm formation rate reported from burned patients [47]. This difference might be attributable to the target group where samples were taken. For example, burn victims are more susceptible to infections of all kinds due to the loss of their skin’s protective layer and the immunosuppression they undergo as a result of the systemic inflammatory response that the damaged tissue causes.
Evidences report revealed that biofilm-producing A.baumannii nosocomial isolates are so common. The survival, proliferation, and epidemic spread of the biofilm-producing A. baumannii in hospital settings, which results in resistance to many commercially available antibiotics and the expression of numerous virulence mechanisms, can be linked to the alarmingly increased prevalence of this organism [1,48]. This is because the biofilm encourages microbial adhesion and long-term survival on biotic and abiotic surfaces, which contributes to chronic and persistent infections, antimicrobial resistance, and strong survival in the hospital environment, particularly from immunocompromised patients in intensive care units [1,2]. Thus, biofilm-mediated infections, their resilience to therapy, and innovative treatment strategies become an emerging public health issue where novel approaches to treating these diseases are urgently needed because biofilm infections greatly increase patient morbidity and significantly increase healthcare expenses or costs [49]. Because biofilms are the primary source of the high frequency of A. baumannii infections linked to medical devices; infection control and treatment are extremely difficult [1,50]. This highlights the necessity of concentrating on infection prevention and control (IPC) measures or activities to manage A. baumannii biofilm-related illnesses caused by devices, as well as great selectivity in the application of treatments in conjunction with anti-biofilms such as octominin, a promising antibacterial and antibiofilm used for the control of multidrug-resistant A. baumannii [51].
Substantial heterogeneity with an I2 of 98.1% was found in the current study. The possible reasons for heterogeneity could be due to differences in methodological issues such as differences in the study design, the method of biofilm detection, target population types, variation in study settings like in facilities of developed and developing countries as well as periodic variation of studies. Moreover, it can be varied in association with infection prevention and control practices performances of health facilities aimed to be carried out to reduce hospital-acquired infection.
The global prevalence of biofilm-forming A. baumannii revealed that the Asian continent had the highest rate of infection (66.31%), which is consistent with earlier research suggesting that the treatment of infections brought on by MDR A. baumannii is challenging in Asian nations like Turkey, India, and Iran [52]. On the other hand, variations might be due to the target population involved in studies might be a population at risk who had a history of exposure to contaminated fomites, chronic pulmonary disease, receipt of broad-spectrum antibiotics & fluconazole, ICU admission and/or prolonged stay, mechanical ventilation and duration of mechanical ventilation, invasive procedures, devices, nasogastric tube, total parenteral nutrition [53–57]. In addition to this, variations in environmental conditions such as wet surfaces support the growth of biofilms.
The second high-burden continent next to Asia was found to be Africa where the prevalence was 57.29% which was higher than found in South America proving the need for routine screening of biofilm-producing A. baumannii infection. The discrepancy might be associated with variations in the developmental stages of the continent as well as the educational status of health care professionals and compliance level which in turn determines their quality of health care services. Furthermore, patients who are colonized or infected, antibiotic use selection pressure, and lax compliance with infection control protocols may all encourage persistence in hospital settings [54].
The present systematic review and meta-analysis showed that studies done by crystal violate staining method yields a higher prevalence (83.55%) of biofilm-producing A.baumannii. Moreover, our findings showed that 41.34% (95% CI = 26.99–55.70, P<0.0001), 33.57% (95% CI = 23.97–43.18, P<0.0001), 27.63% (95% CI = 18.34–36.93, P<0.0001) of isolates of A. baumannii were strong, moderate and weak biofilm producers which were consistent with 51.1%, 24.5%, and 25.8% biofilm former rates with their respective order reported from a previous systematic review and meta-analysis carried-out on burn patients (47)
The results of sensitivity analysis proved that there is no single study that impacted the pooled effect size. The pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A. baumannii was calculated by excluding each study in turn, and the computed pooled prevalence was within 95% confidence intervals of the overall pooled prevalence.
There are some limitations to this study. First, the included studies were conducted only in 13 countries from Asia, Africa, and South America. There were no studies in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and other corners of the world. This might introduce a little bit of bias in justifying the intercontinental comparisons. Next, there was substantial heterogeneity observed between the studies, which may affect the interpretation of the results.
4.1. Conclusion
According to this systematic review and meta-analysis, the pooled prevalence of biofilm-producing A. baumannii clinical isolates has alarmingly increased and become a public health threat. This indicates the burden of biofilm-producing A. baumannii infections urges the need for routine screening and appropriate treatment for better management of hospitalized patients as well as effective controlling of the emergence of drug resistance. Furthermore, it serves as a wake-up call to international, continental, and national health bureaus, as well as other stakeholders, to develop targeted prevention and control strategies for nosocomial or hospital-acquired infections. This finding is also an alert call for the stakeholders to develop strong infection prevention and antibiotics stewardship programs for the prevention and control biofilm producing bacterial infections. Moreover, the data could be used for future complementary research and evidence-based decision-making both in clinical and public health approaches.
References
- 1. Gedefie A, Demsis W, Ashagrie M, Kassa Y, Tesfaye M, Tilahun M, et al. Acinetobacter baumannii Biofilm Formation and Its Role in Disease Pathogenesis. Infection and Drug Resistance 2021:14 3711–3719.
- 2. Mulani MS, Kamble EE, Kumkar SN, Tawre MS, Pardesi KR. Tawre MS and pardesi KR. emerging strategies to combat ESKAPE pathogens in the era of antimicrobial resistance: a review. Front Microbiol. 2019;10(539):1–24. pmid:30988669
- 3. Badmasti F.; Siadat SD; Bouzari S; Ajdary S.; Shahcheraghi F. Molecular detection of genes related to biofilm formation in multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolated from clinical settings. J. Med Microbiol. 2015, 64, 559–564. pmid:25813817
- 4. Nie D.; Hu Y.; Chen Z.; Li M.; Hou Z.; Luo X.; Mao X.; Xue X. Outer membrane protein A (OmpA) as a potential therapeutic target for Acinetobacter baumannii infection. J. Biomed. Sci. 2020, 27, 26. pmid:31954394
- 5. Dijkshoorn L.; Nemec A.; Seifert H. An increasing threat in hospitals: Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2007, 5, 939–951. pmid:18007677
- 6. Zarrilli R.; Pournaras S.; Giannouli M.; Tsakris A. Global evolution of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clonal lineages. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2013, 41, 11–19. pmid:23127486
- 7. Khalil M.A.F.; Ahmed F.A.; Elkhateeb A.F.; Mahmoud E.E.; Ahmed M.I.; Ahmed R.I.; Hosni A.; Alghamdi S.; Kabrah A.; Dablool A.S.; et al. Virulence Characteristics of Biofilm-Forming Acinetobacter baumannii in Clinical Isolates Using a Galleria mellonella Model. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2365. pmid:34835490
- 8. Gaddy JA, Actis LA. Regulation of Acinetobacter baumannii biofilm formation. Future Microbiology 2009; 4 (3): 273.8. pmid:19327114
- 9. Li Z, Ding Z, Liu Y, Jin X, Xie J, Li T. et al. Phenotypic and Genotypic Characteristics of Biofilm Formation in Clinical Isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Infection and Drug Resistance 2021:14 2613–2624. pmid:34262306
- 10. Nie D, Hu Y, Chen Z, et al. Outer membrane protein A (OmpA) as a potential therapeutic target for Acinetobacter baumannii infection. J Biomed Sci. 2020;27(1):26. pmid:31954394
- 11. Walsh BJC, Wang J, Edmonds KA, et al. The response of Acinetobacter baumannii to hydrogen sulfide reveals two independent persulfide-sensing systems and a connection to biofilm regulation. mBio. 2020;11(3). pmid:32576676
- 12. Amin M, Navidifar T, Shooshtari FS, et al. Association between biofilm formation, structure, and the expression levels of genes related to biofilm formation and biofilm-specific resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii strains isolated from burn infection in Ahvaz, Iran. Infect Drug Resist. 2019;12:3867–3881. pmid:31853190
- 13. Opazo A, Dominguez M, Bello H, et al. OXA-type carbapenemases in Acinetobacter baumannii in South America. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries 2012; 6(04): 311–6.
- 14. Tomaras AP, Dorsey CW, Edelmann RE, et al. Attachment to and biofilm formation on abiotic surfaces by Acinetobacter baumannii: involvement of a novel chaperone-usher pili assembly system. Microbiology 2003; 149(12):3473–84. pmid:14663080
- 15. Association of biofilm production with multidrug resistance among clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa from intensive care unit. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine: Peer-reviewed 2013; 17(4): 214–8. pmid:24133328
- 16. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. pmid:33782057
- 17.
Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, et al. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Available from: https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL. Accessed July 09, 2022.
- 18. Wells G, Shea B, Robertson J, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta- Analysis Bias and Confounding Newcastle-Ottowa Scale. Ottawa Hosp Res Inst. 2012; Available from: http://www.evidencebasedpublichealth.de/download/Newcastle_Ottowa_Scale_Pope_Bruce.pdf.
- 19. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(6):557–60. pmid:12958120
- 20. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63. pmid:10877304
- 21. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures. Br Med J. 1997;315(7121):1533–7. pmid:9432252
- 22. Asaad AM, Ansari S, Ajlan SE, Awad SM. Epidemiology of Biofilm Producing Acinetobacter baumannii Nosocomial Isolates from a Tertiary Care Hospital in Egypt: A Cross-Sectional Study. Infection and Drug Resistance 2021:14 709–717. pmid:33654415
- 23. Madaha EL, Gonsu HK, Bughe RN, Fonkoua MC, Ateba CN, Mbacham WF. Occurrence of blaTEM and blaCTXM Genes and Biofilm-Forming Ability among Clinical Isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Microorganisms, 2020; 8(708):1–22.
- 24. AL-Mousawi HT AL- Taee MN, AL-Hajjar QN. Evaluation of Biofilm Formation Capacity of Acinetobacter baumannii Isolated from Clinical Samples in Baghdad Hospitals using Phenotypic Methods. Iraqi Journal of Biotechnology, 2018; 17(3): 47–60.
- 25. Nesa M, Anwar S, Saleh AA. Acinetobacter baumannii: Identification, Antibiotic Sensitivity and Biofilm Formation in Different Clinical Samples. Bangladesh J Med Microbiol 2018; 12 (2): 4–9.
- 26. Castilho SRA, Godoy CSDM, Guilarde AO, Cardoso JL, Andre MCP, Junqueira-Kipnis AP, et al. Acinetobacter baumannii strains isolated from patients in intensive care units in Goiaˆnia, Brazil: Molecular and drug susceptibility profiles. PLoS ONE,2017; 12(5): e0176790. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176790.
- 27. Silva AMCM Costa Júnior SD, Lima JLC Farias Filho JLB, Cavalcanti IMF & Maciel MAV. Investigation of the association of virulence genes and biofilm production with infection and bacterial colonization processes in multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter spp. An Acad Bras Science, 2021; 93(3): 1–13.
- 28. Sung JY. Molecular Characterization and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Biofilm-forming Acinetobacter baumannii Clinical Isolates from Daejeon, Korea. Korean J Clin Lab Sci. 2018;50(2):100–109.
- 29. Ryu SY, Baek WK, and Kim HA. Association of biofilm production with colonization among clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Korean J Intern Med 2017;32:345–351 pmid:27653617
- 30. Qi L, Li H, Zhang C, Liang B, Li J, Wang L, Du X, Liu X, Qiu S and Song H.Relationship between Antibiotic Resistance, Biofilm Formation, and Biofilm-Specific Resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii. Front. Microbiol.2016;7:483. pmid:27148178
- 31. Chen L, Li H, Wen H, Zhao B, Niu Y, Mo Q, Wu Y. Biofilm formation in Acinetobacter baumannii was inhibited by PAβN while it had no association with antibiotic resistance. Microbiology Open. 2020; 9: 1–11.
- 32. Kumari AMS, Routray A, Yadav D, Madhavan R. Imipenem resistance and biofilm production in Acinetobacter. drug invention today, 2013;5:256–8.
- 33. Rao RS, Karthika RU, Singh SP, Shashikala P, Kanungo R, Jayachandran S, Prashanth K. Correlation between biofilm production and multiple drug resistance in imipenem resistant clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, 2008; 26(4): 333–7.
- 34. Asati S, Chaudhary U. Prevalence of biofilm producing aerobic bacterial isolates in burn wound infections at a tertiary care Hospital in northern India. Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters, 2017; XXX (1):39–42.
- 35. Badave GK, Dhananjay K. Biofilm Producing Multidrug Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: An Emerging Challenge. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2015; 9(1): 8–10.
- 36. Gurung J, Khyriem AB, Banik A, Lyngdoh WV, Choudhury B, Bhattacharyya P. Association of biofilm production with multidrug resistance among clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa from intensive care unit. ndian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 2013;17(4):214–18. pmid:24133328
- 37. Azizi O, Shahcheraghi F, Salimizand H, Modarresi F, Shakibaie MR, Mansouri et al. Molecular Analysis and Expression of bap Gene in Biofilm-Forming Multi-Drug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Rep. Biochem. Mol. Biol, 2016; 5(1): 62–72.
- 38. Dehbalaei MA, Najar-Peerayeh S, Taherikalani M, Behmanesh M. Clinical Isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii From Tehran Hospitals: Pulsed-field Gel Electrophoresis Characterization, Clonal Lineages, Antibiotic Susceptibility, and Biofilm-forming Ability. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2017; 10(7): 1–9.
- 39. Moghadam RH, Alvandi A, Akbari N, Jafari P, Abiri R. Assessment of biofilm formation among clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii in burn wounds in the west of Iran. Cellular and Molecular Biology, 201.8;64(15): 30–34. pmid:30672433
- 40. Babapour E, Haddad A, Mirnejad R, Angaji S, Amirmozafari N. Biofilm formation in clinical isolates of nosocomial Acinetobacter baumannii and its relationship with multidrug resistance. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2016; 6(6): 528–533.
- 41. Monfared AM, Rezaei A, Poursina F, Faghri J. Detection of Genes Involved in Biofilm Formation in MDR and XDR Acinetobacter baumannii Isolated from Human Clinical Specimens in Isfahan, Iran. Arch Clin Infect Dis. 2019; 14(2):1–6.
- 42. Hassan PA, and Khider AK. Correlation of biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance among clinical and soil isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii in Iraq. Acta Microbiologica et Immunologica Hungarica, 2019; 1–10.
- 43. Dumaru R, Baral R, and Shrestha LB. Study of bioflm formation and antibiotic resistance pattern of gram-negative Bacilli among the clinical isolates at BPKIHS, Dharan. BMC Res Notes, 2019; 12(38): 1–6.
- 44. O¨ zkul C and Hazırolan G. Oxacillinase Gene Distribution, Antibiotic Resistance, and Their Correlation with Biofilm Formation in Acinetobacter baumannii Bloodstream Isolates. Microbial drug resistance, 2020; 1–10. pmid:32991256
- 45. Elbehiry A, Marzouk E, Moussa IM, Dawoud TM, Mubarak AS, Al-Sarar D, et al. Acinetobacter baumannii as a community foodborne pathogen: Peptide mass fingerprinting analysis, genotypic of biofilm formation and phenotypic pattern of antimicrobial resistance. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 2020; 1–9. pmid:33424412
- 46. Davies D. Understanding biofilm resistance to antibacterial agents. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2003; 2(2):114–122. pmid:12563302
- 47. Salmani A, Shakerimoghaddam A, Pirouzi A, Delkhosh Y, Eshraghi M. Correlation between biofilm formation and antibiotic susceptibility pattern in Acinetobacter baumannii MDR isolates retrieved from burn patients. Gene Reports, 2020; 21:1–7.
- 48. Havenga B.; Reyneke B.; Waso-Reyneke M.; Ndlovu T.; Khan S.; Khan W. Biological Control of Acinetobacter baumannii: In Vitro and In Vivo Activity, Limitations, and Combination Therapies. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1052. pmid:35630494
- 49. Ro¨mling U, Balsalobre C (Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; and University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain). Biofilm infections, their resilience to therapy and innovative treatment strategies (Review). J Intern Med 2012; 272: 541–561.
- 50. Laal-Kargar N, Dolatabadi S, Mohtashami M. Antibacterial and antibiofilm effects of synbiotics against multidrug-resistant bacteria: Acinetobacter baumannii and Enterococcus faecalis; 2020. 1–26.
- 51. Jayathilaka EHTT.; Rajapaksha DC.; Nikapitiya C.; De Zoysa M.; Whang I. Antimicrobial and Anti-Biofilm Peptide Octominin for Controlling Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 5353. pmid:34069596
- 52. Shirmohammadlou N, Zeighami H, Haghi F, Kashefieh M. Resistance pattern and distribution of carbapenemase and antiseptic resistance genes among multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolated from intensive care unit patients. J Med Microbiol. 2018;67(10):1467–73. pmid:30175954
- 53. Turkoglu M, Mirza E, Tunçcan OG, et al. Acinetobacter baumannii infection in patients with hematologic malignancies in intensive care unit: risk factors and impact on mortality. J Crit Care 2011; 26(5):460–467. pmid:21715136
- 54. Fukuta Y, Muder RR, Agha ME, et al. Risk factors for acquisition of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii among cancer patients. Am J Infect Control 2013;41(12):1249–1252. pmid:23870296
- 55. Hsu JF, Chu SM, Lien R, et al. Case-control analysis of endemic Acinetobacter baumannii bacteremia in the neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control 2014;42(1):23–27. pmid:24176602
- 56. Gavaldà L, Soriano AM, Cámara J, et al. Control of endemic extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii with a cohorting policy and cleaning procedures based on the 1 room, 1 wipe approach. Am J Infect Control 2016;44(5):520–524. pmid:26831279
- 57. Young LS, Sabel AL, Price CS. Epidemiologic, clinical, and economic evaluation of an outbreak of clonal multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection in a surgical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(11): 1247–1254. pmid:17926275