Abstract
There are few studies comparing proportion, frequency, mortality and mortality rate of antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacterial infections between tertiary-care hospitals (TCHs) and secondary-care hospitals (SCHs) in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) to inform infection control strategies. We evaluated bloodstream infections (BSIs) from 2012 to 2015 in 15 TCHs and 34 SCHs in Thailand. There were differences in the proportions (%) of BSI caused by AMR strains for some pathogens between TCHs and SCHs. Of 19,665 patients with AMR BSI, 6,746 (34.3%) died. Among patients with AMR BSI, there were no or minimal differences in mortality proportion for all AMR pathogens between TCHs and SCHs. However, the frequency and mortality rates of AMR BSI were considerably higher in TCHs for most pathogens. For example, the mortality rate of hospital-origin carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii BSI in TCHs was nearly three times higher than that in SCHs (10.2 vs. 3.6 per 100,000 patient-days at risk, mortality rate ratio 2.77; 95% confidence interval 1.71 to 4.48, p<0.0001). Targets of and resources for antimicrobial stewardship and infection control programs in LMICs may need to be tailored based on hospital type and size, as burden of AMR infections could differ by hospital setting.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was supported by the DDC, MoPH, Thailand, and Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), U.S.. This research was funded in part by the Wellcome Trust [224681/Z/21/Z and Wellcome Trust Institutional Translational Partnership Award-MORU]. BS is supported by a grant from the UK Department of Health and Social Care using UK aid funding managed by the Fleming Fund (R52354 CN001). For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at: https://figshare.com/s/c028f157c18a3cc06a82. Ethical permission for this study was obtained from the Institute for the Development of Human Research Protection, Ministry of Public Health (IHRP 2334/2556), the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University (MUTM 2014-017-01), and the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee, University of Oxford (OXTREC 521-13). Written approval was given by the directors of the hospitals to use their routine hospital admission database for research.
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.
Yes
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).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This version of the manuscript has been revised to updated data from anonymous hospital no. 17. The microbiology data files of all participating hospitals reported species of Acinetobacter in details (e.g. A. baumannii, Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex, A. nosocomialis, etc), except the microbiology data file of anonymous hospital no. 17, which reported all Acinetobacter as Acinetobacter spp.. In the current version of the manuscript, we assumed that all isolates reported as Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex reported in all participating hospitals and all isolates reported as Acinetobacter spp. in the anonymous hospital no. 17 were A. baumanii. The revision has not changed the conclusion. The data of all other pathogens are the same as that in the previous version.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
