Back

Monitoring the battleground: Antimicrobial resistance, antibiofilm patterns, and virulence factors of wound bacterial isolates from patients in hospital system.

awuor, s. o.; Mariita, R.; Omwenga, E. O.; Musila, J.; Musyoki, S.

2023-01-06 public and global health
10.1101/2023.01.05.23284224 medRxiv
Show abstract

Extensive use of antibiotics in the treatment of bacterial infections has led to a challenge of antibiotic resistance, contributing to morbidity and mortality. Herein, evaluation of bacterial isolates from patients with wound discharge was performed and drug susceptibility patterns examined, with a goal of deciphering antibacterial resistance. A cross-sectional study was conducted between March to June 2022, in which samples were collected from patients with chronic wounds and were inoculated into appropriate media for identification and characterization. The bacterial pathogens were identified using standard microbiological methods. Shockingly, the majority of wound isolates showed positive growth in microbial analysis with high prevalence in male candidates. Further, Staphylococcus aureus 28 (20.7%) was identified as the most predominant pathogen followed by Klebsiella spp. 20 (14.8%), P. aeruginosa spp. 10 (14.8%) and lastly E. coli 6 (4.4%) bacteria in the wound isolates while cotrimoxazole 13 (48.1%) followed by clindamycin 7 (25.9%) and erythromycin 7 (25.9%) were the most antibacterial resistant drugs to both Gram positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Out of the four isolates, 3 (75%) isolates were able to produce the haemolysin and protease and 2 (50%) isolates were able to produce the lipase and phospholipase. The findings herein form a clinical basis for identification of antimicrobial resistance in chronic wounds that can be applied in responsible use of antibacterial in chronic wound management and as an illumination in development of more potent antibiotics for chronic wound treatment

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.