Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T12:25:03.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the Dominican Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2022

Alfredo J. Mena Lora*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
Chrystiam Sorondo
Affiliation:
Amadita Laboratories, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
Belkis Billini
Affiliation:
Amadita Laboratories, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
Patricia Gonzalez
Affiliation:
Amadita Laboratories, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
Susan C. Bleasdale
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
*
Author for correspondence: Alfredo J Mena Lora, MD, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, 808 S Wood St, 888 CME MC 735, ChicagoIL60612. E-mail: amenalor@uic.edu.

Abstract

Objective:

To describe antimicrobial resistance before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in the Dominican Republic.

Design:

Retrospective study.

Setting:

The study included 49 outpatient laboratory sites located in 13 cities nationwide.

Participants:

Patients seeking ambulatory microbiology testing for urine and bodily fluids

Methods:

We reviewed antimicrobial susceptibility reports for Escherichia coli isolates from urine and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSAR) from bodily fluids between January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, from deidentified susceptibility data extracted from final culture results.

Results:

In total, 27,718 urine cultures with E. coli and 2,111 bodily fluid cultures with PSAR were included in the analysis. On average, resistance to ceftriaxone was present in 25.19% of E. coli isolated from urine each year. The carbapenem resistance rates were 0.15% for E. coli and 3.08% for PSAR annually. The average rates of E. coli with phenotypic resistance consistent with possible extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) in urine were 25.63% and 24.75%, respectively, before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The carbapenem resistance rates in urine were 0.11% and 0.20%, respectively, a 200% increase. The average rates of PSAR with carbapenem resistance in bodily fluid were 2.33% and 3.84% before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively, a 130% percent increase.

Conclusions:

Resistance to carbapenems in PSAR and E. coli after the COVID-19 pandemic is rising. These resistance patterns suggest that ESBL is common in the Dominican Republic. Carbapenem resistance was uncommon but increased after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global threat. 1 Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have unique challenges that may contribute to AMR. 2 In many LMICs, antimicrobials can be purchased without prescriptions and are widely available. Reference Esimone, Nworu and Udeogaranya3Reference Mena Lora, Rojas-Fermin, Bisono, Almonte and Bleasdale6 These factors may be driving an increase in antimicrobial use (AU) and AMR in LMICs over the past decade. Reference Semret and Haraoui7 The COVID-19 pandemic has further compounded this challenge, increasing AU in both inpatient and outpatient settings. 811

Developing antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) in LMICs is critical to help optimize antimicrobial use and curb AMR. Understanding local susceptibility patterns is a key first step toward the development of treatment guidelines for ASPs. The lack of local susceptibility data to guide therapy could lead to spiraling empiricism, furthering antimicrobial pressure and worsening AMR. Data are lacking on local susceptibility in the Dominican Republic and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AMR. We sought to describe resistance in the Dominican Republic and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of antimicrobial susceptibility reports for Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSAR) isolates from an outpatient clinical laboratory in the Dominican Republic. A report was developed for E. coli isolates from urine and PSAR isolates from bodily fluids processed between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021. Isolates processed between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, were considered prepandemic isolates. Isolates processed between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were considered postpandemic isolates. These 2 groups reflect the annual antibiograms before and after COVID-19. The bodily fluid category represented samples from any abscess, body cavity, or anatomical site. The report included adults and children and was generated from deidentified susceptibility data extracted from all final culture results during the study period. The University of Illinois at Chicago Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Study site

Amadita Laboratories is a private commercial laboratory company that provides outpatient services nationwide in the Dominican Republic. There are 49 outpatient laboratory sites across the Dominican Republic, representing 13 urban areas and all geographic regions of the country (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Locations of the Amadita Laboratory outpatient collection sites across the Dominican Republic.

Laboratory workflow and microbiology testing

Samples are collected at the outpatient laboratory sites and are processed centrally in the city of Santo Domingo. The central laboratory is equipped with the VITEK MS, VITEK 2 XL, VITEK 2 Compact (bioMèrieux, Marcy-l'Étoile, France) and advanced expert systems (AESs) for initial analysis. The VITEK 2 XL and VITEK 2 Compact are used for the initial testing. VITEK 2 XL uses the AST-GN67, AST XN05, and AST XN08 susceptibility cards, and VITEK 2 Compat uses the AST-GN67, AST XN05, and AST XN08 cards. VITEK MS is used for matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectroscopy (MALDI-TOF MS) analysis of organisms. AES software versions 8.0 and 9.2 were used for analysis and interpretation of the antibiogram. Additional confirmatory testing was performed using the Kirby-Bauer method via the MASTDISCS Combi AMP-C, ESBL ID MAST GROUP, and MASTDISCS Combi CARBA PLUS discs (Mast Group, Bootle, UK). Sensitivity discs for individual carbapenems and the E-test for meropenem were used to confirm resistance.

For E. coli, a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of ≥4 to ceftriaxone was considered resistant and possible extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) whereas an MIC of ≥8 μg/mL to meropenem was considered resistant (carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales or CRE). For PSAR, an MIC of ≥32 μg/mL to ceftazidime was considered resistant and possible ESBL while an MIC of ≥8 μg/mL for meropenem was considered resistant (carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas auriginosa or CR-PSAR). Thresholds for resistance were based on Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M100.

Results

In total, 27,718 urine cultures with E. coli were reviewed from 2018 to 2021. On average, 6929.5 urine cultures were performed per year. For E. coli, the resistance rates to ceftriaxone were 25.21% in 2018, 26.05% in 2019, 24.84% in 2020 and 24.65% in 2021 (Table 1). The resistance rates to meropenem were 0.08% in 2018, 0.13% in 2019, 0.10% in 2020, and 0.30% in 2021 (Table 1). The average E. coli with ceftriaxone resistance rates were 25.63% and 24.75% before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively (Fig. 2). The average rates of E. coli with CRE were 0.11% and 0.20% before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively (Fig. 3). Between 2020 and 2021, a 200% increase in carbapenem-resistant E. coli occurred.

Table 1. Ceftriaxone Resistance (Possible ESBL) and Meropenem Resistance (CRE) in E. coli Isolates from Urine

Note. ESBL, extended-spectrum β-lactamase; CRE, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales.

Fig. 2. Escherichia coli from urine with ceftriaxone resistance and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSAR) from bodily fluids with ceftazidime resistance (possible extended-spectrum β-lactamase or ESBL) before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fig. 3. Escherichia coli from urine and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSAR) from bodily fluids with carbapenem resistance before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

In total, 2,111 bodily fluid cultures with PSAR were reviewed from 2018 to 2021. On average, 527.75 cultures were performed per year. For PSAR, the resistance rates to ceftazidime were 11.79% in 2018, 13.48% in 2019, 15.19% in 2020 and 15.13% in 2021 (Table 2). The resistance rates to meropenem were 2.12% in 2018, 2.53% in 2019, 2.33% in 2020, and 5.35% in 2021 (Table 2). The average rates of PSAR with ceftazidime resistance in bodily fluid were 12.64% and 15.16% before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively (Fig. 2). The average rates of PSAR with carbapenem resistance were 2.33% and 3.84% before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively (Fig. 3). Between 2020 and 2021, a 130% increase in CR-PSAR occurred.

Table 2. Phenotypic Resistance Consistent With ESBL (Ceftazidime Resistance) and CR-PSAR (Meropenem Resistance) in PSAR Isolates From Bodily Fluids

Note. ESBL, extended-spectrum β-lactamase; PSAR, Pseudomonas aeruginosa; CR-PSAR carbapenem-resistant PSAR.

In conclusion, we detected high levels of resistance in E. coli isolated from urine samples and rising resistance to carbapenems in PSAR from bodily fluids. On average, resistance to ceftriaxone was present in 25.19% of E. coli isolates from urine each year. These resistance patterns suggest that ESBL is common in the Dominican Republic, at levels comparable to other countries in Latin American. Reference Gales, Castanheira, Jones and Sader12Reference Guzmán-Blanco, Labarca, Villegas and Gotuzzo14 Carbapenem resistance was rare in both E. coli and PSAR, averaging 0.15% and 3.08% each year, respectively. However, an increase was seen after the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in PSAR from bodily fluids. With bodily fluids as a source, this increase may be in more complex patients than those from urine samples and raises the concern of a similar effect in hospitalized patients.

In Latin America, the use of azithromycin for COVID-19 was widespread. 10,Reference Tapia15 Antibiotic use increased in hospitalized and ambulatory patients alike, despite efforts from professional societies to discourage their use. 810 Reports showing an increase in AMR in Latin America after the pandemic are emerging. Reference Thomas, Corso and Pasterán16 This finding mirrors a rise of AMR in the United States, where nosocomial infections by ESBL increased by 32%, CRE increased by 35% and AMR PSAR increased by 132% in the first year of the pandemic. 11

Excess antibiotic use is a significant problem in LMICs. Reference Muri-Gama, Figueras and Secoli4,Reference Shet, Sundaresan and Forsberg5 In the Dominican Republic, antimicrobials can be purchased without prescriptions and are available in pharmacies and stores. Reference Mena Lora, Rojas-Fermin, Bisono, Almonte and Bleasdale6 Aminopenicillins are commonly used and may contribute to high rates of ESBL. Studies have reported ceftriaxone resistance in >24% of E. coli at a pediatric hospital and 46% in hospitalized adults. Reference Luna, Lora, Roque, Franceschini, Perez and Cabán17,Reference Mena Lora, Rodriguez Abreu, Blanco, de Lara and Bleasdale18 Circulating ESBL genotypes in the Dominican Republic include blaCTX and blaTEM. Reference Roque, de Luna and Mena Lora19 Future ASP interventions must focus on both ambulatory and hospital settings. Treatment guidelines reflecting local susceptibilities reported herein can be an important patient safety and stewardship tool.

A strength of our study was the large number of samples and wide geographic representation of samples in the Dominican Republic. These samples may provide a valuable portrait of susceptibilities in these communities. The study also had several limitations. All cultures performed during the study period were included; thus, patients with recurrent infections may be overrepresented. The large number of isolates in the study may balance this weakness. Inferring resistance based on phenotypic resistance patterns rather than genotypes is the main limitation of our study. Ceftriaxone nonsusceptibility without ESBL genes can occur. MIC accuracy can be affected by bacterial inoculum, antimicrobial dilutions, and differing enzyme expression. Reference Villegas, Esparza and Reyes20 High inoculum can occur in severe infections and may have an impact on MICs. Ceftazidime resistance may indicate ESBL in PSAR. However, genes other than ESBL may also contribute to ceftazidime nonsusceptibility in PSAR. The lack of patient specific information, such as comorbidities or prior antibiotic use, is another weakness in our study. Despite these weaknesses, we have reported susceptibilities using the same methodology used in routine clinical practice and may provide valuable information for empiric antimicrobial selection and the development of local treatment guidelines.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the colossal efforts of healthcare workers and essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Financial support

No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

Antimicrobial resistance fact sheet: antimicrobial resistance. World Health Organization website. http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance. Accessed November 7, 2022.Google Scholar
US Department of Health and Human Services. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2019. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/threats-report/2019-ar-threats-report-508.pdf. Published 2019. Accessed November 15, 2022.Google Scholar
Esimone, CO, Nworu, CS, Udeogaranya, OP. Utilization of antimicrobial agents with and without prescription by out-patients in selected pharmacies in southeastern Nigeria. Pharm World Sci 2007;29:655660.Google Scholar
Muri-Gama, AS, Figueras, A, Secoli, SR. Inappropriately prescribed and over-the-counter antimicrobials in the Brazilian Amazon basin: we need to promote more rational use even in remote places. PLoS One 2018;13(8):18.Google ScholarPubMed
Shet, A, Sundaresan, S, Forsberg, BC. Pharmacy-based dispensing of antimicrobial agents without prescription in India: appropriateness and cost burden in the private sector. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2015;4:17.Google ScholarPubMed
Mena Lora, AJ, Rojas-Fermin, R, Bisono, B, Almonte, M, Bleasdale, SC. A nationwide survey of antimicrobial dispensation practices in pharmacies and bodegas in the Dominican Republic. Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol 2022;2:e173.Google Scholar
Semret, M, Haraoui, LP. Antimicrobial resistance in the tropics. Infect Dis Clin N Am 2019;33:231245.Google ScholarPubMed
Falta de regulación en uso de antibióticos agudiza resistencia antimicrobiana. Sociedad Dominicana de Infectologia website. https://www.sdird.org/2021/11/19/falta-regulacion-antibioticos/. Published November 19, 2021. Accessed November 9, 2022.Google Scholar
Mena Lora, AJ, Rojas-Fermin, RA, Echeverria, SL, et al. 408. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial use and resistance in the United States and the Dominican Republic. Open Forum Infect Dis 2021;8 suppl 1:S305S306.10.1093/ofid/ofab466.609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panamerican Health Organization. Aumentan las infecciones resistentes a los medicamentos en las Américas debido al mal uso de los antimicrobianos durante la pandemia. PAHO Newsroom.Google Scholar
COVID-19: US impact on antimicrobial resistance, special report 2022. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/covid19-impact-report-508.pdf. Published 2022. Accessed November 15, 2022.Google Scholar
Gales, AC, Castanheira, M, Jones, RN, Sader, HS. Antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative bacilli isolated from Latin America: results from SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (Latin America, 2008–2010). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;73:354360.Google ScholarPubMed
Sader, HS, Farrell, DJ, Flamm, RK, Jones, RN. Antimicrobial susceptibility of gram-negative organisms isolated from patients hospitalised with pneumonia in US and European hospitals: results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 2009–2012. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2014;43:328334.Google ScholarPubMed
Guzmán-Blanco, M, Labarca, JA, Villegas, MV, Gotuzzo, E. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase producers among nosocomial Enterobacteriaceae in Latin America. Braz J Infect Dis 2014;18:421433.Google ScholarPubMed
Tapia, L. COVID-19 and fake news in the Dominican Republic. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2020;102:11721174.Google ScholarPubMed
Thomas, GR, Corso, A, Pasterán, F, et al. Increased detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales bacteria in Latin America and the Caribbean during the COVID-19 pandemic. Emerg Infect Dis 2022;28(11):18.Google ScholarPubMed
Luna, D de, Lora, AJM, Roque, Y, Franceschini, ML, Perez, M del C, Cabán, L. Multidrug-resistant organisms from three pedaitric inpatient units in the Domincan Republic. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019;6 suppl 2:S277.10.1093/ofid/ofz360.655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mena Lora, AJ, Rodriguez Abreu, J, Blanco, C, de Lara, J, Bleasdale, SC. 487. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in gram-negative bacilli bloodstream infections at a tertiary teaching hospital in the Dominican Republic. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019;6 suppl 2:S238S238.Google Scholar
Roque, Y, de Luna, D, Mena Lora, AJ. 208. Genotypic characteristics of ESBLs and AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae in the Dominican Republic. Presented at the SHEA Spring Meeting, Boston, MA; April 24–26, 2019.Google Scholar
Villegas, MV, Esparza, G, Reyes, J. Should ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacterales be tested for ESBLs? A PRO/CON debate. JAC Antimicrob Resist 2021. doi: 10.1093/jacamr/dlab035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Locations of the Amadita Laboratory outpatient collection sites across the Dominican Republic.

Figure 1

Table 1. Ceftriaxone Resistance (Possible ESBL) and Meropenem Resistance (CRE) in E. coli Isolates from Urine

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Escherichia coli from urine with ceftriaxone resistance and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSAR) from bodily fluids with ceftazidime resistance (possible extended-spectrum β-lactamase or ESBL) before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Escherichia coli from urine and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSAR) from bodily fluids with carbapenem resistance before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Figure 4

Table 2. Phenotypic Resistance Consistent With ESBL (Ceftazidime Resistance) and CR-PSAR (Meropenem Resistance) in PSAR Isolates From Bodily Fluids