Epidemiology and resistance phenotypes of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in Greece, 2014 to 2016

Résumé fourni par la source

Background and aim A multicentre nationwide surveillance study was conducted in Greek hospitals to evaluate epidemiology of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae clinical isolates, and their susceptibilities to last-line antibiotics. Methods: Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were evaluated by Etest, colistin MICs were also evaluated by broth microdilution SensiTest (now known as ComASP) Colistin. Carbapenemase genes were detected by PCR. Clonal relatedness was assessed by PFGE. Isolates were prospectively collected between November 2014 and April 2016, from 15 hospitals. Results : Among 394 isolates, K. pneumoniae carbepenemase (KPC) remained the most prevalent carbapenemase (66.5%). NDM was the second most prevalent (13.7%), identified in 12 hospitals, followed by VIM (8.6%). OXA-48- and double carbapenemase-producers remained rare (3.6%, 6.3%, respectively). Carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae isolates showed high resistance to last-line antibiotics. Gentamicin and colistin were the most active in vitro with 61.9% and 59.6% of the isolates to be inhibited at ≤ 2mg/L, followed by fosfomycin (susceptibility (S): 58.4%) and tigecycline (S: 51.5%). Ceftazidime/avibactam inhibited 99.6% of KPC and 100% of OXA-48-like-producing isolates, while temocillin was active against 58% of KPC isolates at urinary breakpoint of ≤ 32mg/L* and only 2.7% at systemic breakpoint of ≤ 8mg/L. NDM-producing isolates belonged mainly to one clone, whereas KPC, VIM, OXA-48 and double carbapenemase-producers were mainly polyclonal. Conclusions : KPC remains the predominant carbapenemase among K. pneumoniae in Greece, followed by NDM, whereas changing trends of resistance rates to last-line antimicrobials against carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae with the exception of ceftazidime/avibactam mandates continuing surveillance to support clinical practice.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.