Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-09T04:11:59.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Importance of Addressing Multidrug Resistance and Not Assuming Single-Drug Resistance in Case-Control Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Erika M. C. D'Agata ,
Maria Adriana Cataldo ,
Roberto Cauda  and
Evelina Tacconelli
Erika M. C. D'Agata*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Maria Adriana Cataldo
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
Roberto Cauda
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
Evelina Tacconelli
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Department of Infectious Diseases, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
*
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Division Infectious Diseases, 330 Brookline Avenue, East Campus Mailstop SL-435G, Boston, MA 02215 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background.

Case-control studies analyzing antibiotic exposure as a risk factor for antimicrobial resistance usually assume single-drug resistance in the bacteria under study, even though resistance to multiple antimicrobials may be present. Since antibiotic selection pressures differ depending on the susceptibility profile of the antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, an accurate assessment of whether exposure to an individual antimicrobial is a risk factor for the emergence of resistance should distinguish between single-drug–resistant and multidrug-resistant bacteria.

Objective.

To determine whether the exposures to individual antibiotics that were identified as independent risk factors in case-control studies differed depending on whether single-drug–resistant or multidrug-resistant bacteria were evaluated.

Design.

Two retrospective case-control studies were performed with data on patients harboring Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains resistant only to ciprofloxacin (CRPA) and patients harboring P. aeruginosa strains resistant to ciprofloxacin and other antibiotics (multidrug-resistant P. aeruginosa [MDR-PA]). These 2 groups were compared with patients not harboring P. aeruginosa.

Setting.

Two tertiary care hospitals.

Results.

A total of 41 patients harboring CRPA and 151 patients harboring MDR-PA were identified and matched to 192 control subjects. By conditional logistic regression, independent risk factors associated with presence of CRPA were nonambulatory status (OR, 5.6 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.4-23]; P = .02) and prior ciprofloxacin exposure (OR, 5.0 [95% CI, 1.2-21]; P = .03). Independent risk factors for presence of MDR-PA were a Charlson score greater than 2 (OR, 3.3 [95% CI 1.8-6.0]; P<.001) and exposure to quinolones (OR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.2-5.0]; P = .001), third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins (OR, 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7-7.1]; P<.001), imipenem (OR, 3.8 [95% CI, 1.2-12.1]; P = .02), and/or aminoglycosides (OR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.04-5.1]; P = .04).

Conclusion.

There were substantial differences in exposure to individual antimicrobials between patients harboring CRPA and patients harboring MDR-PA. Future case-control studies addressing risk factors for single-drug–resistant bacteria should consider the complete susceptibility profile of the bacteria under investigation.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 7 , July 2006 , pp. 670 - 674
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. McCarthy, M. Resistant bacteria spread through US communities: 70% of isolates are now resistant to all beta-lactam antibiotics. Lancet 2003; 362:1554–1555.Google Scholar
2. D'Agata, E, Venkataraman, L, DeGirolami, P, Samore, M. The molecular epidemiology of acquisition of ceftazidime-resistant gram-negative strains in a non-outbreak setting. J Clin Microbiol 1997; 35:2602–2605.Google Scholar
3. Boffi El Amari, E, Chamot, E, et al. Influence of previous exposure of antibiotic therapy on the susceptibility pattern of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremic isolates. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33:1859–1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Trouillet, JL, Vuagnat, A, Combes, A, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia: comparison of episodes due to piperacillin-resistant versus piperacillin-susceptible organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34:1047–1054.Google Scholar
5. D'Agata, EMC. Rapidly rising prevalence of nosocomial multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli: a 9-year surveillance study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25:842–846.Google Scholar
6. Charlson, ME, Pompei, P, Ales, KL, MacKenzie, CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40:373–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. National Committee on Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS). Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically: approved standard. NCCLS document N. 2nd ed. (7-A3). Villanova, PA: NCCLS, 1999.Google Scholar
8. Flamm, RK, Weaver, MK, Thornsberry, C, et al. Factors associated with relative rates of antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates tested in clinical laboratories in the Untied States from 1999 to 2002. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48:2431–2436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Muder, RR, Brennen, C, Drenning, SD, et al. Multiply antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacilli in a long-term care facility: a case-control study of patient risk factors and prior antibiotic use. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997; 18:809–813.Google Scholar
10. Parapmythiotou, E, Lucet, J, Timsit, J, et al. Acquisition of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in patients in intensive care units: role of antibiotics with antipseudomonal activity. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:670–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Defez, C, Fabbro-Peray, P, Bouziges, N, et al. Risk factors for multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa nosocomial infection. J Hosp Infect 2004; 57:209–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Cao, B, Wang, H, Sun, H, et al. Risk factors and clinical outcomes of nosocomial multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. J Hosp Infect 2004; 57:112–118.Google Scholar
13. Harris, AD, Perencevich, E, Roghmann, MC, et al. Risk factors for piperacillin-tazobactam–resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa among hospitalized patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46:854–858.Google Scholar
14. Harris, AD, Smith, D, Johnson, JA, et al. Risk factors for imipenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa among hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34:340–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Tacconelli, E, Tumbarello, M, Bertagnolio, S, et al. Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections: Analysis of trends in prevalence and epidemiology. Emerg Infect Dis 2002; 8:220–221.Google Scholar
16. D'Agata, EMC. Methodological issues of case-control studies: a review of established and newly recognized limitations. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005; 26:338–341.Google Scholar
17. Harris, AD, Carmeli, Y, Samore, MH, et al. Impact of severity of illness bias and control group misclassification bias in case-control studies of antimicrobial-resistant organisms. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005; 26:342–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Kaye, KS, Harris, AD, Samore, M, Carmelli, Y. The case–case-control study design: addressing the limitations of antimicrobial resistance risk factor studies. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005; 26:346–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Harris, AD, Karchmer, TB, Carmeli, Y, Samore, MH. Methodological principles of case-control studies that analyzed risk factors for antibiotic resistance: a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32:1055–1061.Google Scholar
20. Harris, AD, Samore, MH, Lipsitch, M, et al. Control-group selection importance in studies of antimicrobial resistance: examples applied to Pseudomonas aeruginosa, enterococci, and Escherichia coli . Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34:1558–1563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Donskey, CJ. The role of the intestinal tract as a reservoir and source of transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:219–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Vollaard, EJ, Clasener, HAL. Colonization resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38:409–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed