Abstract
Background Antibiotics are essential commodities in managing bacterial infections in humans, animals and plants but are hampered by the development of antibiotic resistance which is one of the most serious public health threats of the twenty-first century. Moreover, the rate at which novel antibiotics are discovered is slower that the rate of emerging antibiotic resistance. Therefore, the few remaining potent antibiotics in clinical setting should be safeguarded by closer monitoring of their effectiveness via periodic antibiogram studies. This study aimed to evaluate the antibiotic susceptibility patterns of routinely isolated bacteria at Livingstone Central Hospital (LCH).
Methods A cohort retrospective study with secondary information collected from electronic laboratory system generated reports on all isolated organisms at LCH microbiology laboratory for three years (January 2019 to December 2021) was used. Study variables such as age, gender, patient’s location, name of the organism and the antibiotic susceptibility were considered. Descriptive statistics was used to describe our data and a chi-square test was used for categorical variables where a p-value of ≤0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Results A total of 765 specimens were processed from January 2019 to December 2021 and only 500 (65.4%) met the inclusion criteria for this study. Of the 500, 291(58.2%) specimens were received from female and from the age-group 17-39 years (253, 50.6%) and 40-80 years (145, 29%) in form of blood (331, 66.2%), urine (165, 33%) and sputum (4, 0.8%). The out-patient department (323, 64.6%) had a higher number of specimen culture requests that reduced from 175 (35%) for the year 2019 and 2020 to 150 (30%) for year 2021. Amongst the common bacterial isolates identified, Staphylococcus aureus (142, 28.4%) was the commonest isolate followed by Escherichia coli (91, 18.2%), Enterobacter agglomerans (76, 15.2%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (43, 8.6%). The resistance pattern indicated that ampicillin (93%) was the least effective drug followed by oxacillin (88%), penicillin (85.6%), co-trimoxazole (81.5%), erythromycin (71.9%), nalidixic acid (68%), ceftazidime (60%), tetracycline (55.1%), and ciprofloxacin (45.9%) whereas the most effective antibiotics were imipenem (14.5%), piperacillin/tazobactam (16.7%) and clindamycin (34.5%). The resistance levels were affected by patient gender, location, and specimen type.
However, the screening of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) with cefoxitin showed 76.3% (29/38) susceptibility and 23.7% (9/38) resistance.
Conclusion The commonest bacterial isolates were Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Enterobacter agglomerans, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Klebsiella oxytoca. The least effective antibiotics were ampicillin, penicillin, oxacillin, cotrimoxazole, and erythromycin whereas the most effective antibiotics were imipenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, and clindamycin. Therefore, re-establishing of the empiric therapy is needed for proper patient management, studies to determine the levels of extended spectrum beta lactamase- and carbapenemase-producing bacteria are warranted.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Mulungushi University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (SMHS-MU2-2021-33v1)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
Thresa N. Mwansa (tmwansa46{at}gmail.com); John Amos Mulemena (johnamos55{at}gmail.com); Kingsley Kamvuma (kkamvuma{at}mu.ac.zm); Christopher Newton Phiri (cnphiri{at}mu.ac.zm); Warren Chanda (chandawarren{at}yahoo.com)
Data Availability
data adequately presented
