Open Access

A hospital based surveillance of metallo-beta-lactamase producing gram negative bacteria in Nepal by imipenem-EDTA disk method

  • Pratigya Thapa1Email author,
  • Dinesh Bhandari1, 2,
  • Dhiraj Shrestha1,
  • Hiramani Parajuli1,
  • Prakash Chaudhary1,
  • Jyoti Amatya1 and
  • Ritu Amatya3
BMC Research Notes201710:322

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2640-7

Received: 16 January 2017

Accepted: 21 July 2017

Published: 25 July 2017

Abstract

Background

A rising threat of the rapid spread of acquired metallo-beta-lactamases (MBLs) among major Gram-negative pathogens is a matter of public health concern worldwide. Hence, for a low income nation like Nepal, surveillance data on MBL producing clinical isolates via a cost effective technique is necessary to prevent their dissemination as well as formulation and regulation of antimicrobial stewardship policy.

Methods

The prospective study was conducted at Nepal Medical College, Kathmandu from May to October, 2014 to assess the prevalence of MBL production among ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative rods (GNRs) isolates. The samples were processed according to standard microbiological procedure following the Manual of clinical Microbiology. Isolated GNRs were subjected to susceptibility testing against the selected panel of antibiotics by Kirby- Bauer disc diffusion method and interpretation made in conformity with the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Ceftazidime-resistant isolates were subjected to the detection of MBL production by imipenem—EDTA combined disc (CD) method.

Results

Among the Gram-negative isolates, 5.80% (21/362) were found to be MBL positive with Acinetobacter spp. showing the highest prevalence i.e. 85.71% (18/21), followed by P. aeruginosa i.e. 14.29% (3/21). None of the other cefazidime resistant gram negative bacteria tested were found to be positive for MBL production with all the positive isolates determined to be Multidrug resistant (MDR) strains.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated a higher rate of resistance among P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. to a wide variety of antibiotic categories with an additional burden of MBL production within them, warranting a need for strict surveillance and rapid detection of MBL production among the GNRs.

Keywords

Metallo-beta-lactamase Surveillance Ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative rods Antimicrobial resistance

Background

Metallo-beta-lactamase (MBL) activity has emerged as one of the most feared resistance mechanisms because of its ability to hydrolyze virtually all beta-lactams, including carbapenems. However, MBLs are unable to hydrolyze monobactams. Based on the molecular studies, carbapenemases i.e., enzymes hydrolyzing carbapenems are classified into four groups: A, B, C and D. Metallo-beta-lactamases belong to Amber class B type of beta-lactamase and act on a broad spectrum of substrates including penicillins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems [1]. MBL producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa was first reported in Japan in 1991, since then it has been reported in various parts of the world including Asia, Europe, Australia, South America, and North America [29]. The detection of MBL-producing Gram-negative bacilli is crucial to control the spread of resistance and for the optimal treatment of patients, particularly the critically ill and hospitalized patients [10].

In context of Nepal data on the burden of MBL producing Gram negative bacteria is limited [15]. Since, the knowledge about the types of enzymes that may be present can serve to guide the infectious disease physician toward choosing appropriate therapy without the need for extensive secondary testing, detection of MBL producing isolates is of paramount importance in clinical setting. Given the background, this epidemiological study was designed to generate updated information on the burden of metallo-beta-lactamase producing Gram negative bacteria from a tertiary care hospital in Nepal so that an effective antimicrobial stewardship policy can be formulated and implemented to circumvent the rising threat of antimicrobial resistance.

Methods

Study setting, design and study population

The prospective study was conducted at Nepal Medical College, Kathmandu from May to October 2014 to assess the prevalence of metallo-beta-lactamase production among the ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative rods (GNRs) isolated from different clinical samples. A total of 4765 different clinical samples (sputum, pus, tracheal secretion, bronchial secretion, urine, and body fluids like CSF and peritoneal fluid) from patients of all age groups received in the microbiology laboratory for routine examination and culture, during the study period of six months were included in the study.

Laboratory processing of the samples

All the sample specimens were processed by standard microbiological operating procedure for isolation and identification of microorganisms following the Manual of clinical microbiology [11]. Briefly, the samples were inoculated in routine culture media (blood agar, MacConkey agar, chocolate agar) [Hi media Laboratory Limited, Mumbai, India, LOT 0000137031], subjected for microscopic examination as Gram’s stained preparation and inoculums from culture plates tested in biochemical media for identification of the bacteria based upon their morphology, cultural characteristics and biochemical properties, in compliance with Manual of Clinical Microbiology [11].

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Antibiotic susceptibility test of all the clinical isolates to antibiotics from various categories (supplier: Hi media Laboratory Limited, Mumbai, India) was performed by Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method and interpretation of the results was made in compliance with CLSI guidelines [12]. Control strains of P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and E. coli ATCC 25922 were used in parallel as a part of quality control as well as for validation of the test performed. We considered the isolates resistant to at least three classes of first-line antimicrobial agents as the MDR strains [13].

Detection of metallo-beta-lactamase producing strain

In this study phenotypic detection method as described below was followed for the detection of MBL isolates.

Screening test

The isolates were subjected for MBL detection when the zone of inhibition (ZOI) for ceftazidime (CAZ) (30 µg) was <18 mm. The sensitivity or resistance pattern to imipenem (IPM) (10 μg) and/or meropenem (MEM) (10 μg) were not considered for MBL detection as bacteria might harbor “hidden MBL”. Thus to ascertain not a single isolate carrying hidden MBL is missed, we used ceftazidime resistance as the screening tool. A suspension of bacteria equivalent to 1:10 dilution of 0.5 McFarland were used to prepare a lawn culture in Muller Hinton agar and subsequent application of the antibiotic discs was carried out [14, 15].

Combined disc (CD) method

Two IPM disks (10 µg), one containing 10 µl of 0.5 M (750 µg) anhydrous ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid (EDTA) and the other without EDTA were placed 25 mm apart (center to center). An increase in zone diameter of ≥7 mm around the IPM-EDTA disk compared to that of the IPM disk alone was considered positive for MBL [16].

Results

A total of 4765 different clinical samples (urine, pus, body fluids and sputum) were included from patients admitted or attending outdoor patient (OPD) during the study period of 6 months from May to November 2014. Out of them 664 (13.9%) samples were growth positive, among which 362 (54.5%) were Gram-negative isolates with E. coli being the most prevalent i.e., 199 (54.9%). Out of the total 362 Gram negative isolates, 196 (54%) samples were from the outdoor patients (OPD) and the remaining 166 (46%) samples were from the indoor (hospital admitted) patients. MBL was detected in 21 (5.8%) of the culture positive Gram-negative bacteria (Table 3).

Distribution of isolates in different clinical samples

Escherichia coli from urine was the most prevalent isolate i.e., 179 (68.1%) and Proteus vulgaris, Providencia spp. and Serratia spp. were the least prevalent isolates i.e., 1 (0.2%) (Table 1).
Table 1

Overall distribution of isolates in different clinical samples

Isolates

Samples

Urine

Pus

Sputum

Body fluid

Total

E. coli

179 (68.1)

10 (2.7)

4 (1.1)

6 (1.6)

199 (54.9)

P. aeruginosa

27 (10.3)

5 (1.3)

16 (4.4)

6 (1.6)

54 (14.9)

A. calcoaceticus baumanii

Complex

21 (8)

21 (5.8)

10 (2.7)

6 (1.6)

58 (16)

K. pneumonia

25 (9.5)

1 (0.2)

4 (1.1)

1 (0.2)

31 (8.5)

Enterobacter spp.

1 (0.4)

1 (0.2)

1 (0.2)

0 (0)

3 (0.8)

P. mirabilis

4 (1.5)

1 (0.2)

0 (0)

0 (0)

5 (1.3)

P. vulgaris

1 (0.4)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (0.2)

Citrobacter spp.

4 (1.5)

2 (0.5)

3 (0.8)

0 (0)

9 (2.4)

Serratia spp.

1 (0.4)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (0.2)

Providencia spp.

0 (0)

1 (0.2)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (0.2)

Total

263 (100)

42 (11.6)

38 (10.5)

19 (5.2)

362 (100)

Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of the isolates

Out of the 362 Gram negative bacterial isolates tested, 159 (43.92%) Enterobacteriaceae members were found to be resistant to ceftazidime. Among the ceftazidime resistant Enterobacteriaceae members, the most effective antibiotics was nitrofurantoin i.e. 91 (91%) followed by amikacin i.e. 85 (85%). All the ceftazidime resistant Enterobacteriaceae members were also resistant to ampicillin (Table 2). Meanwhile, among the total P. aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter calcoaceticus baumanii complex isolates, 44.4 and 60.3%, respectively were found to be resistant against ceftazidime. Polymixin B and tigeycline were found to be the most effective drug among the cefatzidime resistance P. aerugenosa and Acinetobacter spp. respectively, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of the ceftazidime resistant Gram negative isolates (N = 159)

Antibiotics

Enterobacteriaceae family (N = 100)

P. aeruginosa

(N = 24)

Acinetobactercalcoac eticusbaumanii complex (N = 35)

S (%)

I (%)

R (%)

S (%)

I (%)

R (%)

S (%)

I (%)

R (%)

Amikacin

85

0

15

75

0

25

31.4

2.8

65.7

Ampicillin

0

0

100

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

Ampicillin–sulbactam

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

31.4

2.8

65.7

Aztreonam

NT

NT

NT

62.5

4.1

33.3

NT

NT

NT

Cefepime

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

11.4

0

88.5

Cefotaxime

11

0

89

NT

NT

NT

11.4

0

88.5

Ciprofloxacin

21

3

76

45.8

0

54.1

14.2

2.8

82.8

Co-trimoxazole

28

0

72

NT

NT

NT

31.4

2.8

65.7

Doxycycline

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

34.2

2.8

62.8

Gentamicin

34

1

65

54.1

0

45.8

37.1

0

62.8

Imipenem

NT

NT

NT

91.6

0

8.3

68.5

5.7

25.7

Nitrofurantoin

91

0

9

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

Ofloxacin

22

0

78

48

0

54.1

NT

NT

NT

Piperacillin

NT

NT

NT

41.6

0

58.3

NT

NT

NT

Piperacillin–tazobactam

NT

NT

NT

79.1

0

20.8

37.1

0

62.8

Polymixin B

NT

NT

NT

100

0

0

NT

NT

NT

Tigecycline

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

85.7

0

14.2

S sensitive, I intermediate, R resistant, NT not tested

A total of 208 (57.5%) isolates were found to be MDR with most of them being E. coli i.e., 113 (56.8%) followed by Acinetobacter spp. i.e., 82.8% and P. aerugenosa i.e., 44.4% (Table 3).
Table 3

Multi drug resistance patterns and metallo-beta-lactamase production in the isolates

Isolates

MDR positive

MBL positive

Total

E. coli

113 (56.8)

0 (0)

199

P. aeruginosa

24 (44.4)

3 (5.6)

54

A. calcoaceticus baumanii complex

48 (82.8)

18 (31)

58

K. pneumonia

12 (38.7)

0 (0)

31

Enterobacter spp.

2 (66.7)

0 (0)

3

P. mirabilis

2 (40)

0 (0)

5

P. vulgaris

1 (100)

0 (0)

1

Citrobacter spp.

6 (66.7)

0 (0)

9

Serratia spp.

0 (0)

0 (0)

1

Providencia spp.

0 (0)

0 (0)

1

Total

208 (57.5)

21 (5.8)

362

Distribution of the metallo-beta-lactamase producing organisms

Among the 362 Gram negative bacteria isolated, 21/362 (5.8%) were metallo-beta-lactamase producers. Among the MBL positive bacteria, the prevalence of A. calcoaceticus baumanii complex was the highest i.e., 18 (85.7%), followed by P. aeruginosa i.e., 3 (14.2%). None of the other Gram negative isolates were found to be metallo-beta-lactamase producers during the study (Table 3). Most of the MBL positive isolates were recovered from urine and pus i.e. 7 (33.3%), each and the least from body fluid i.e., 3 (14.2%) (Table 4).
Table 4

Distribution of metallo-beta-lactamase producers in different clinical samples

Samples

MBL positive

MBL negative

 

A. calcoaceticus baumanii

P. aeruginosa

Other Gram negative organisms

Total

A. calcoaceticus baumanii

P. aeruginosa

Other Gram negative organisms

Total

Urine

4

3

0

7

17

24

215

256

Pus

7

0

0

7

14

5

16

35

Sputum

4

0

0

4

6

16

12

34

Body fluids

3

0

0

3

3

6

7

16

Total

18

3

0

21

40

51

250

341

Discussion

Metallo-beta-lactamases are a large and diverse group of beta-lactamases that are now disseminating on mobile genetic elements among clinically important Gram-negative pathogens, limiting treatment options for life-threatening infections [1, 17, 18]. Infection with the metallo-beta-lactamase (MBLs) producing organisms are associated with higher rates of mortality, morbidity, and health care costs [19]. In any nosocomial setting, carbapenems are used as the last resort for treatment of MDR Gram-negative bacterial infection. However, since last 15 years, acquired resistance to this life saving antimicrobial has been increasingly reported not only in P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. but also among members of Enterobacteriaceae which is mainly mediated by Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPC) [20].

In this study, among the 362 Gram-negative isolates recovered, 5.8% were found to be MBL producer which is higher compared to the prevalence rate of 1.3% reported from a similar study conducted in Nepal during 2012 that reported MBL producers from samples of lower respiratory tract (LRT) infection cases [15]. The findings of current study suggest that there is a continuous proliferation of MBL producers in Nepal. During the surveillance period of 6 months, only P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. were found to be MBL producers out of the 362 Gram-negative isolates recovered: similar to the results of previous study [15], which also reported the MBL production among non-fermentative bacteria only with no case of other members from Enterobacteriaceae showing MBL production. However, two different studies conducted in India reported production of MBL by members of Enterobacteriaceae including E. coli, Klebsiella spp., Enterobacter spp., and Citrobacter spp. [21, 22].

The highest prevalence rate of MBL producers in this study, was detected from urine and pus sample i.e. 7/21 (33.3%) of the total MBL producers isolated. All the MBL producing P. aeruginosa were isolated from urine and maximum MBL producing Acinetobacter spp. 7/21 (33.3%) were isolated from pus. Meanwhile, blood samples were not considered for present surveillance study owing to the lack of BACTEC™ instrumented culture system in the hospital and also because blood culture is recommended mostly for cases related to enteric fever complaints or those presenting with symptoms of sepsis which upon culture yield Salmonella spp. or Gram positive cocci in most of the attempts.

A PCR based method is usually considered to be the best method for detecting MBL-producing isolates. However, the increasing number of types of MBLs is creating difficulties in detection of MBLs, since primers used for PCR are usually designed to detect a single gene type [14]. Furthermore, for a low income county like Nepal use of PCR based technique in surveillance process would be expensive and undesirable from financial aspect to test every single suspected isolate. To circumvent this problem we have used phenotypic detection technique using imipenem-EDTA combined disk method, which in one hand has sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 98%, respectively and on the other hand is cost effective as well [16].

With respect to antimicrobial susceptibilities, 159 isolates i.e., 100 isolates from the member of Enterobacteriaceae family, 24 P. aeruginosa and 35 Acinetobacter spp. were found to be resistant against ceftazidime upon initial screening. Among the ceftazidime resistant isolates belonging to Enterobacteriaceae family, the most sensitive antibiotic was Nitrofurantoin, 91% followed by amikacin i.e. 85%. Polymxin B was found to be the most effective drug with 100% susceptibility to cefatzidime resistant P. aeruginosa followed by imipenem i.e., 91.67% which is in concordance with the findings of Mishra et al. [15]. In this study, 14/24 (58.33%) of P. aeruginosa were found to be resistant to Piperacillin which is in agreement with 69.1% resistance of P. aeruginosa to Piperacilin as reported by Aibinu et al. [23]. CLSI recommends ofloxacin as supplemental when the P. aeruginosa is isolated from urine sample but for the uniformity, in this study it was used to every isolates of P. aeruginosa irrespective of the sample type.

Likewise, among the ceftazidime resistant Acinetobacter spp., tigecycline was found to be the most sensitive drug i.e. 30/35 (85.7%), which is in agreement to the findings of Mishra et al. [15]. Since Tigecycline disk diffusion breakpoint for Acinetobacter spp. is not recommended by CLSI, for the purpose of this study, U.S. Food and drug administration (FDA) tigecycline break point criteria for Enterobacteriaceae i.e. ≥19 mm for susceptibility and ≤14 mm for resistance was used which in recent years have been followed by other researchers as well [24]. In this study, 24/35 (68.5%) of the ceftazidime resistant Acinetobacter spp. were sensitive to Imipenem. Similar reports of higher sensitivity of Imipenem to Acinetobacter spp. were reported in other studies [25, 26].

The highest rate of MDR in our study was seen among E. coli strains followed by Acinetobacter spp. and P. aeruginosa. Among the total P. aeruginosa isolates 44.4% were found to be MDR which is similar to 49.8% MDR reported by Strateva et al. [27]. However, some other studies conducted in Nepal have reported slightly higher MDR cases i.e. 51.3% and 65.3%, respectively [15, 28]. Likewise, among the total Acinetobacter spp. isolated, 82.7% were found to be MDR which is similar to previous study conducted in Nepal, where 95% of Acinetobacter spp. isolated were reported to be MDR [15]. Similarly, in another study conducted at National Institute of Neurological and Allied sciences, Kathmandu, 85.4% isolates of Acinetobacter spp. were reported MDR [28]. The current findings is an alarming sign, since almost half of the MBL producers have been found to be MDR strains leaving the medical practisoners with limited therapeutic options to combat such pathogens.

The armamentarium against MDR Gram-negative microorganisms has almost been exhausted especially after the advent of carbapenem resistance among them. Until last year, parenteral colistin available as colistin methanesulfonate (CMS) showing potent activity in vitro against MDR nosocomial P. aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp., Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Enterobacter spp. and Klebsiella spp., including ESBL and carbapenemase-producers [29, 30] was the ultimate treatment option. However, recent reporting of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance in Escherichia coli isolated from animals, food, and patients in China by Liu et al. in November, 2016 [31], has left us with no option. Hence, proper implementation of infection control strategy, active antimicrobial stewardship approach, improved laboratory detection, judicious use of antimicrobial agents, along with regular national level surveillance can be some of the arbitration measures to control as well as aiding formulation of strategy in tackling drug resistance issues like the current one under discussion.

Conclusion

The findings of our study demonstrated a higher prevalence of MDR and MBL positive P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp., which have been globally incriminated with adverse clinical outcome including a higher morbidity and mortality rate. The study results demonstrate the serious therapeutic and epidemiological threat of the spread of metallo-beta-lactamase producers. Since, antimicrobial resistance is a growing threat worldwide with increasing resistance to third generation cephalosporins becoming a cause of concern among Enterobacteriaceae; early detection and infection control practices are the best defense against these organisms.

Abbreviations

EDTA: 

ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid

MBLs: 

metallo-beta-lactamases

GNRs: 

gram negative rods

CLSI: 

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute

CD: 

combined disk

MDR: 

multi drug resistance

CSF: 

cerebro-spinal fluid

ATCC: 

American type culture collection

ZOI: 

zone of inhibition

CAZ: 

cetazidime

IPM: 

imipenem

MEM: 

meropenem

NHR: 

Cnepal Health Research Council

OPD: 

outdoor patients

KPC: 

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases

LRT: 

nlower respiratory tract

PCR: 

polymerase chain reaction

FDA: 

food and drug administration

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

PT Research design, sample collection, laboratory work, result analysis and manuscript preparation. DB and DS Research design, result analysis and manuscript preparation. HP and PC Result analysis and manuscript preparation. JA and RA Overall supervision of the research project. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the entire staffs of department of microbiology, Nepal medical college and teaching hospital, for their support during the study. We are in debt to all the participants of this research program, without whose contribution it would not have been a success.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

Data supporting our findings are contained within the manuscript. However datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author (email: pratigyathapa1234@gmail.com) upon reasonable request.

Consent for publication

All the participants were explained the purpose/objectives of the research along with their roles and written consent to publish the data was taken from the participants as well as hospital administration.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC), Kathmandu, Nepal (Reg. No. 148/2014). Written informed consent was taken from all the patients enrolled in the study prior to their enrollments and consent for publication of data was taken from hospital administration and research department of Nepal medical college and teaching hospital.

Funding

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Microbiology, Trichandra Multiple College
(2)
Public Health Research Laboratory, Institute of Medicine, Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital
(3)
Department of Microbiology, Nepal Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Kathmandu University

References

  1. Walsh TR. Emerging carbapenemases: a global perspective. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010;36(Suppl 3):S8–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Watanabe M, et al. Transferable imipenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991;35(1):147–51.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Lee K, et al. Metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli in Korean Nationwide Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance group hospitals in 2003: continued prevalence of VIM-producing Pseudomonas spp. and increase of IMP-producing Acinetobacter spp. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;50(1):51–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Yan JJ, et al. Metallo-beta-lactamases in clinical Pseudomonas isolates in Taiwan and identification of VIM-3, a novel variant of the VIM-2 enzyme. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(8):2224–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Lagatolla C, et al. Endemic carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa with acquired metallo-β-lactamase determinants in European Hospital. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10(3):535–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Libisch B, et al. Isolation of an integron-borne bla(VIM-4) type metallo-β- lactamase gene from a carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolate in Hungary. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(9):3576–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Patzer J, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains harbouring an unusual blaVIM-4 gene cassette isolated from hospitalized children in Poland (1998–2001). J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;53(3):451–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Poirel L, et al. Characterization of VIM-2, a carbapenem-hydrolyzing metallo-beta- lactamase and its plasmid- and integron-borne gene from a Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolate in France. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44(4):891–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Peleg AY, et al. Emergence of IMP-4 metallo-beta-lactamase in a clinical isolate.from Australia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;54(3):699–700.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hervé MR, et al. Building communication networks: international network for the study and prevention of emerging antimicrobial resistance (INSPEAR). Emerg Infect Dis J. 2001;7(2):319.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Versalovic J, et al. Manual of clinical microbiology. 10th ed. Washington, DC: American Society of Microbiology; 2011.Google Scholar
  12. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, in twenty-third informational supplement. Wayne: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute 2013.Google Scholar
  13. Adams-Haduch JM, et al. Genetic basis of multidrug resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates at a tertiary medical center in Pennsylvania. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(11):3837–43.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Yong D, et al. Imipenem-EDTA disk method for differentiation of metallo-beta-lactamase-producing clinical isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40(10):3798–801.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Mishra SK, et al. Metallo-beta-lactamase producing gram-negative bacterial isolates. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2012;10(22):208–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Franklin C, Liolios L, Peleg AY. Phenotypic detection of carbapenem-susceptible metallo-beta-lactamase-producing gram-negative bacilli in the clinical laboratory. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44(9):3139–44.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Cornaglia G, et al. Metallo-beta-lactamases as emerging resistance determinants in Gram-negative pathogens: open issues. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007;29(4):380–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cornaglia G, Giamarellou H, Rossolini GM. Metallo-beta-lactamases: a last frontier for beta-lactams? Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11(5):381–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaleem F, et al. Frequency and susceptibility pattern of metallo-beta-lactamase producers in a hospital in Pakistan. J Infect Dev. Ctries. 2010;4(12):810–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Nordmann P, Cuzon G, Naas T. The real threat of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing bacteria. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009;9(4):228–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Wadekar MD, Anuradha K, Venkatesha D. Phenotypic detection of ESBL and MBL in clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae. Int J Curr Res Aca Rev. 2013;1(3):89–95.Google Scholar
  22. Chakraborty D, Basu S, Das S. A study on infections caused by metallo beta lactamase producing gram negative bacteria in intensive care unit patients. Am J Infect Dis. 2010;6(2):34–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Aibinu I, Nwanneka T, Odugbemi T. Occurrence of ESBL and MBL in clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from lagos. Niger J Am Sci. 2007;3(4):81–5.Google Scholar
  24. Behera B, Mathur P. High levels of antimicrobial resistance at a tertiary trauma care centre of India. Indian J Med Res. 2011;133(3):343–5.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaur A, et al. Observations on carbapenem resistance by minimum inhibitory concentration in nosocomial isolates of Acinetobacter species: an experience at a tertiary care Hospital in North India. J Health Popul Nutr. 2008;26(2):183–8.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee K, et al. High prevalence of ceftazidime-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and increase of imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. in Korea: a KONSAR program in 2004. Yonsei Med J. 2006;47(5):634–45.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Strateva T, et al. Problematic clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from the university hospitals in Sofia, Bulgaria: current status of antimicrobial resistance and prevailing resistance mechanisms. J Med Microbiol. 2007;56(7):956–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Khanal S, et al. Beta-lactamase-producing multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens from tracheal aspirates of intensive care unit patients at National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Nepal. ISRN Microbiol. 2013;5.Google Scholar
  29. Li J, et al. Colistin: the re-emerging antibiotic for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6(9):589–601.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Giamarellou H. Treatment options for multidrug-resistant bacteria. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2006;4(4):601–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu YY, et al. Emergence of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance mechanism MCR-1 in animals and human beings in China: a microbiological and molecular biological study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(2):161–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017

Advertisement