Search

Background: The incidence of hospital-acquired infections in extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (XDR-PA) has been increasing worldwide and is frequently associated with an increase in mortality and morbidity rates. The aim of this study was to characterize clinical XDR-PA isolates recovered during six months at three different hospitals in Egypt., Results: Seventy hospital-acquired clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa were classified into multidrug-resistant (MDR), extensively drug-resistant (XDR) and pandrug-resistant (PDR), according to their antimicrobial resistance profile. In addition, the possession of genes associated with mobile genetic elements and genes encoding antimicrobial resistance determinants among isolates were detected using polymerase chain reaction. As a result, a significant percentage of the isolates (75.7%) were XDR, while 18.5% were MDR, however only 5.7% of the isolates were non-MDR. The phenotypic detection of carbapenemases, extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) and metallo β-lactamase (MBL) enzymes showed that 73.6% of XDR-PA isolates were carbapenemases producers, whereas 75.5% and 88.7% of XDR-PA isolates produced ESBLs and MBL respectively. In addition, PCR screening showed that oxa gene was the most frequently detected gene of carbapenemases (91.4%), while aac(6')-lb gene was mostly detected (84.3%) among the screened aminoglycosides-resistance genes. Furthermore, the molecular detection of the colistin resistance gene showed that 12.9% of isolates harbored mcr-1 gene. Concerning mobile genetic element markers (intI, traA, tnp513, and merA), intI was the highest detected gene as it was amplified in 67 isolates (95.7%). Finally, phylogenetic and molecular typing of the isolates via ERIC-PCR analysis revealed 10 different ERIC fingerprints., Conclusion: The present study revealed a high prevalence of XDR-PA in hospital settings which were resistant to a variety of antibiotics due to several mechanisms. In addition, 98% of the XDR-PA clinical isolates contained at least one gene associated with movable genetic elements, which could have aided the evolution of these XDR-PA strains. To reduce spread of drug resistance, judicious use of antimicrobial agents and strict infection control measures are therefore essential., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Proteus mirabilis is an opportunistic pathogen that has been held responsible for numerous nosocomial and community-acquired infections which are difficult to be controlled because of its diverse antimicrobial resistance mechanisms., Methods: Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of P. mirabilis isolates collected from different clinical sources in Mansoura University Hospitals, Egypt was determined. Moreover, the underlying resistance mechanisms and genetic relatedness between isolates were investigated., Results: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing indicated elevated levels of resistance to different classes of antimicrobials among the tested P. mirabilis clinical isolates (n = 66). ERIC-PCR showed great diversity among the tested isolates. Six isolates (9.1%) were XDR while all the remaining isolates were MDR. ESBLs and AmpCs were detected in 57.6% and 21.2% of the isolates, respectively, where bla TEM , bla SHV , bla CTX-M , bla CIT-M and bla AmpC were detected. Carbapenemases and MBLs were detected in 10.6 and 9.1% of the isolates, respectively, where bla OXA-48 and bla NDM-1 genes were detected. Quinolone resistant isolates (75.8%) harbored acc(6')-Ib-cr, qnrD, qnrA, and qnrS genes. Resistance to aminoglycosides, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and chloramphenicol exceeded 80%. Fosfomycin was the most active drug against the tested isolates as only 22.7% were resistant. Class I or II integrons were detected in 86.4% of the isolates. Among class I integron positive isolates, four different gene cassette arrays (dfrA17- aadA5, aadB-aadA2, aadA2-lnuF, and dfrA14-arr-3-bla OXA-10 -aadA15) and two gene cassettes (dfrA7 and aadA1) were detected. While class II integron positive isolates carried four different gene cassette arrays (dfrA1-sat1-aadA1, estXVr-sat2-aadA1, lnuF- dfrA1-aadA1, and dfrA1-sat2)., Conclusion: P. Mirabilis ability to acquire resistance determinants via integrons may be held responsible for the elevated rates of antimicrobial resistance and emergence of XDR or even PDR strains limiting the available therapeutic options for management of infections caused by those strains., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The spread of fluoroquinolone (FQ) resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii represents a critical health threat. This study aims to overcome FQ resistance in A. baumannii via the formulation of polymeric nanoFQs. Herein, 80 A. baumannii isolates were obtained from diverse clinical sources. All A. baumannii isolates showed high resistance to most of the investigated antimicrobials, including ciprofloxacin (CIP) and levofloxacin (LEV) (97.5%). FQ resistance-determining regions of the gyrA and parC genes were the most predominant resistant mechanism, harbored by 69 (86.3%) and 75 (93.8%) of the isolates, respectively. Additionally, plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance genes aac(6')-Ib and qnrS were detected in 61 (76.3%) and 2 (2.5%) of the 80 isolates, respectively. The CIP- and LEV-loaded poly ε-caprolactone (PCL) nanoparticles, F CIP and F LEV , respectively, showed a 1.5-6- and 6-12-fold decrease in the MIC, respectively, against the tested isolates. Interestingly, the time kill assay demonstrated that MICs of F CIP and F LEV completely killed A. baumannii isolates after 5-6 h of treatment. Furthermore, F CIP and F LEV were found to be efficient in overcoming the FQ resistance mediated by the efflux pumps in A. baumannii isolates as revealed by decreasing the MIC four-fold lower than that of free CIP and LEV, respectively. Moreover, F CIP and F LEV at 1/2 and 1/4 MIC significantly decreased biofilm formation by 47-93% and 69-91%, respectively. These findings suggest that polymeric nanoparticles can restore the effectiveness of FQs and represent a paradigm shift in the fight against A. baumannii isolates., (© 2024. The Author(s).)