Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 37286

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri

"The Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) has been in operation since almost a decade. It has contributed a huge number of peer reviewed articles, across a spectrum of medical disciplines, to the medical literature.
Its wide based indexing and open access publications attracts many authors as well as readers
For authors, the manuscripts can be uploaded online through an easily navigable portal, on other hand, reviewers appreciate the systematic handling of all manuscripts. The way JCDR has emerged as an effective medium for publishing wide array of observations in Indian context, I wish the editorial team success in their endeavour"



Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri
Faculty, Pediatric Medicine
Super Speciality Paediatric Hospital and Post Graduate Teaching Institute, Noida
On Sep 2018




Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dematolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
Knowledge is treasure of a wise man. The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help ones reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journalsNo manuscriptsNo authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2012 | Month : April | Volume : 6 | Issue : 2 | Page : 182 - 187

Prevalence of Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase (ESBL) Producers among Gram Negative Bacilli from Various Clinical Isolates in a Tertiary Care Hospital at Jhalawar, Rajasthan , India.

Gaurav Dalela

1. MBBS, MD. Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar, Rajasthan (PIN – 326001), India

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Gaurav Dalela, MBBS. MD,
Assistant Professor, Deptt of Microbiology
Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar, Rajasthan (Pin Code 326001), India
Phone: 09314607245
E-mail: gauravdalela@yahoo.com

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The resistance to broad spectrum β-lactams which is mediated by the extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) enzyme is an increasing problem now-a-days. This resistance mechanism has been responsible for nosocomial outbreaks, serious therapeutic failure if it is not detected on time and the outbreak of multidrug resistant, gram negative pathogens that need expensive control measures. As no data was available on the prevalence of ESBL in this region, the current study was undertaken to determine the prevalence of the ESBL producing strains in our hospital based population of Jhalawar.

Aim: To know the prevalence of ESBL producing organisms at our tertiary care hospital at Jhalawar.

Material and Methods: A total of 219 consecutive, non-repetitive, gram negative isolates, which were resistant to one of the third generation cephalosporins (cefotaxime, ceftriaxone or ceftazidime) were selected as “Suspicious for ESBL production” as recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). These isolates were confirmed for ESBL production by the double disc synergy test (DDST) and the phenotypic confirmatory disc diffusion test (PCDDT) and they were further confirmed by the E-test ESBL strip randomly.

Result: Out of the 219 isolates which were tested, 135 (61.6%) were found to be ESBL producers by PCDDT and 126 (57.5%) were found to be ESBL producers by DDST. Twenty-eight randomly selected isolates were further confirmed by the E-test ESBL strip, which showed a highly significant correlation with PCDDT (p value <0.001). The isolates of Escherichia coli (73.5%) were the most common ESBL producers, followed by Proteus vulgaris (60%), K. pneumoniae (58.1%) and others. The maximum ESBL production was seen in urine (66.4%), followed by pus (57.3%) and others (54.2%). Imipenem (98.5%), piperacillin/tazobactum (72.6%) and amikacin (64.5%), in the decreasing order, were the most active and reliable agents for the treatment of the infections which were caused by the ESBL producing organisms.

Conclusion: There is a high prevalence of ESBL production in our hospital and so, it is essential to report the ESBL production along with the routine sensitivity reports, which will help the clinician in prescribing proper antibiotics. Also, control measures which include the judicious use of antibiotics, antibiotic cycling, the implementation of appropriate infection control measures and the formulation of an antibiotic policy must be done, to prevent the spread of these strains.

Keywords

Extended spectrum beta lactamase, DDST, PCDDT, E-test ESBL, Prevalence

INTRODUCTION
The ever-increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics is one of the most challenging tasks of all the medical issues which are being faced by us today. A single mutation in bacteria which leads to a new resistance mechanism against various drugs is like undoing within moments, the great efforts in developing these drugs, of a great mind. The persistent exposure of the bacterial strains to a multitude of β-lactams has induced a dynamic and continuous production and mutation of β-lactamases in the bacteria, expanding their activity even against the third and fourth generation cephalosporins such as ceftazidime, cefotaxime and cefepime and also against aztreonam. These new β-lactamases are called extended spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) (1). Original Article Microbiology Section ESBL enzymes are plasmid borne and they have evolved from point mutations which altered the configuration of the active site of the original and long known β-lactamases, which have been designated as TEM-1, TEM-2, and SHV-1 (1). The resistance to newer β-lactams which are a result of these ß-lactamases, has emerged quickly. The first report of plasmid-encoded β-lactamases which are capable of hydrolyzing the extended-spectrum cephalosporins was published in 1983 (2). ESBL production has become more and more common in a variety of enteric bacilli other than Klebsiella spp. or Escherichia coli (e.g. Enterobacter aerogenes, E. cloacae, Serratia marcescens, Morganella morganii, Providentia spp., Citrobacter freundii and C. koserii), as well as in non-enteric bacilli (e.g. Pseudomonas aeruginosa) (3). ESBLs have also been reported in Acinetobacterspp, Burkholderia cepacia and Alcaligenes fecalis (2).

The risk factors for the infection or colonization with the ESBL producing organisms include: the length of hospital or ICU stay, the presence of vascular or urinary catheters, undergoing haemo-dialysis or emergency abdominal surgery, gut colonization, low birth weight, prior exposure to any antibiotic (e.g., quinolones, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, aminoglycoside and metronidazole), prior ceftazidime or azteronam administration and prior stay in a long term care facility (2). Generally, an isolate is suspected to be an ESBL producer when it shows in vitro susceptibility to the second generation cephalosporins (cefoxitin and cefotetan) and resistance to the third generation cephalosporins and to aztreonam. Moreover, one should suspect these strains when the treatment with these agents for gram negative infections fails despite the invitro susceptibility reports. Once an ESBL producing strain is detected, the laboratory should report it as “resistant” to all penicillins, cephalosporins, and aztreonam, even if it tests as susceptible (1).

The best means of testing for ESBLs is an initial screening for reduced susceptibility to cefpodoxime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, or aztreonam, and then performing the phenotypic confirmatory test by demonstrating a synergistic effect between an indicator cephalosporin and a β-lactamase inhibitor (usually clavulanic acid) (3). The NCCLS/CLSI have recommended the combined disk method and the MIC method for ESBL confirmation (3). As no data was available on the prevalence of ESBL in this region, the current study was undertaken to determine the prevalence of ESBL producing, gram negative bacilli from various clinical isolates in our hospital based population of Jhalawar.

Material and Methods

Bacterial isolates: A total of 219 consecutive, non-repetitive, gram negative isolates from various clinical samples such as urine (n=113), pus (n=82), ear swab (n=8), stool (n=7), vaginal swab (n=4), sputum (n=2), pleural fluid (n=2) and conjunctival swab (n=1) which were received in the clinical bacteriology laboratory, Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar, Rajasthan, from December 2010 to mid-August 2011, were included in the study.
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: The isolates were tested by the disc diffusion method (modified Kirby-Bauer method) on Muller Hinton agar (Hi-Media) following the zone size criteria which was recommended by the CLSI (4). The antibiotics (μg) which were included were amikacin (30), piperacillin (100), piperacillin/ tazobactum (100/10), cefepime (30), cefotaxime (30), ceftriaxone (30), ceftazidime (30), amoxyclav (20/10), cotrimoxazole (25), ciprofloxacin (5), imipenam (10), doxycycline (30) and azithromycin (15).
Criteria for the selection of the ESBL producing strains: The isolates were tested for their susceptibility to the third generation cephalosporins (3GCs) e.g. ceftazidime (30 μg), cefotaxime (30 μg) and ceftriaxone (30 μg) by using the standard disc diffusion method as recommended by the CLSI (4). If a zone diameter of ≤ 22 mm for ceftazidime, ≤ 27 mm for cefotaxime and < 25 mm for ceftriaxone were recorded, the strain was considered to be “suspicious for ESBL production” (4). Only those isolates which were resistant to one of the 3 GCs were selected for the study and were processed for ESBL production.
The double disc synergy test (DDST): According to the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) guidelines (5), isolates which were presumed to be ESBL producers on the basis of the screening test results, were picked up and emulsified in saline to a 0.5 McFarland’s turbidity standard. Discs of ceftazidime (30 μg), cefotaxime (30μg) and amoxyclav (20 μg amoxycillin and 10 μg clavulanic acid) were placed at a distance of 20 mm from center to center in a straight line, with the amoxyclav disc in the middle on a plate of Mueller Hinton Agar (MHA) being inoculated with the test strain. The plates were incubated at 37oC aerobically overnight. Isolates which showed an enhancement of the zone of inhibition as greater than 5 mm on the amoxyclav side of the disc as compared to that which was seen on the side without amoxyclav, were confirmed as ESBL producers (5). (Table/Fig 1)
The phenotypic confirmatory disc diffusion test (PCDDT): All the strains which were screened out for ESBL production were also subjected to confirmation by using the PCDDT, as recommended by the CLSI (4). The ceftazidime (30 μg) discs alone and in combination with clavulanic acid (ceftazidime + clavulanic acid, 30/10 μg discs) were applied onto a plate of Mueller Hinton Agar (MHA) which was inoculated with the test strain. An increase of ≥ 5mm in the zone of inhibition of the combination discs in comparison to the ceftazidime disc alone was considered to be a marker for ESBL production (4) (Table/Fig 2).
The ESBL E Test: The E-test ESBL strips (AB Biodisk, Sweden) (6) carry two gradients, ceftazidime (0.5-32 μg/ml) on the one end and ceftazidime plus clavulanic acid (0.064-4 μg/ml) in a different concentration gradient on the other end, along with a fixed concentration of clavulanic acid (4 μg/ml). A lawn culture of the test organism was plated on Mueller Hinton Agar (MHA) on which the E-test ESBL strip was placed on the centre of the plate. The plates were incubated aerobically at 37oC for 16-18 hours. The MIC was interpreted at the point of intersection of the inhibition eclipse with the E-test strip edge. The presence of ESBL was confirmed by the appearance of a phantom zone or by the deformation of the TZ eclipse or when the ceftazidime MIC was reduced by >3 log2 dilutions (ratio TZ/TZL, >8) in the presence of clavulanic acid (Table/Fig 3) as per the manufacturer’s guidelines (6).
Quality control: β-lactamase negative Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 was used as the negative control and ESBL-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 700603 was used as the positive control throughout the study (4).

Statistical analysis: Statistical analysis was performed by the Chisquare test and a p value of less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

The present study was conducted in the Department of Microbiology, Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar, Rajasthan from December 2010 to mid August 2011, to know the prevalence of ESBL producing gram negative bacilli in various clinical isolates at our tertiary health care centre. The antibiotic sensitivity pattern revealed that the maximum sensitivity was seen for imipenem (96.8%), followed by piperacillin/tazobactum (69.9%), amikacin (59.8%), azithromycin (45.7%), ciprofloxacin (42.5%), and cefepime (32.4%). A high resistance rate was seen for cotrimoxazole (83.5%), ceftriaxone (83.1%), ceftazidime (80.8%), doxycycline and amoxyclav (80.4%), piperacillin (77.6%), and cefotaxime (78.1%) [Table/Fig-4]. Out of the 219 gram negative bacilli, 135 (61.6%) were confirmed as ESBL producers. DDST detected only 126 ESBL producers and all the 135 were detected by PCDDT (p value <0.05) [Table/Fig-5].

Three strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae, 4 strains of Escherichia coli184and 2 strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were not diagnosed as ESBL producers by DDST, which were detected as ESBL producers by PCDDT. The rest of the bacteria showed similar prevalence by both DDST and PCDDT, thus indicating a highly significant correlation (p value <0.001) [Table/Fig-5]. Escherichia coli was the most common ESBL producer which was found, followed by Proteus vulgaris and others, as shown by both PCDDT and DDST [Table/Fig-5].

Twenty-eight randomly selected isolates (14 Escherichia coli, 9 Klebsiella pneumonia and 5 Pseudomonas aeruginosa) were further confirmed by the E-test ESBL strip (AB Biodisk, Sweden), which showed a highly significant correlation with PCDDT (p value <0.001). The specimen wise distribution of the ESBL producers is shown in [Table/Fig-6]. The maximum ESBL production was seen in urine (66.4%), followed by pus (57.3%) and others (54.2%) (p value <0.05). Escherichia coli showed the maximum ESBL prevalence in pus (76.9%), followed by others (75%) and urine (72.2%). [Table/Fig-6].

The ESBL producers had more sensitive isolates for imipenem (98.5%), piperacillin/tazobactum (72.6%) and amikacin (64.5%) as compared to their non ESBL producing counterparts (p value >0.05). The non ESBL producers had different mechanisms for their resistance pattern. For other antibiotics, the resistance pattern was foundto be more in the ESBL producers as compared to their non-ESBL producing counterparts (p value <0.01) [Table/Fig-7, 8].

Only 2 ESBL producing strains, one of which was Proteus mirabilis, showed a sensitive pattern to ceftazidime and the second, Proteus vulgaris, showed intermediate sensitivity to ceftazidime. All of the other isolates showed resistance to ceftazidime, indicating thatceftazidime was a good drug for the detection of the ESBL activity having significant correlation (p value <0.01) [Table/Fig-7, 8].

Discussion

The spread of ESBL producing bacteria has become strikingly rapid worldwide, indicating that continuous monitoring systems and effective infection control measures are absolutely required. The therapeutic options for the infections which are caused by these organisms have also become increasingly limited (7). A number of nosocomial outbreaks which were caused by ESBL producing organisms, have been reported in the United States. [8-10] Although most of the outbreaks were limited to high risk patient care areas such as ICUs, oncology units etc., the first report of an outbreak in nursing homes appeared in the literature in the year 1999 (11). Therefore, now- a- days, the threat of ESBL producing isolates is not limited to ICUs or tertiary care hospitals only.

The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) has issued recommendations for ESBL screening, for the confirmation of the isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp., and for reporting the confirmed organisms. No CLSI recommendations existed for ESBL detection and for the reporting of other organisms (12) which were included in our study.

Previous studies from India have reported the prevalence of theESBL producers to be 6.6 to 68%. In south India, Subha et al (13) reported 6.6% ESBL producers among Klebsiella pneumonia from children, whereas Babypadmini et al (14) reported 40.3% ESBL producers in their study cohort. The ESBL production which was reported among gram negative bacteria by Mathur et al (15) was 68%. S Singhal et al (16) detected ESBL positivity in 64% isolates and C. Rodrigues et al (17) reported 53% ESBL production and 65.8%, 61.7% and 27.9% ESBL positivity among E. coli, K. pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa respectively. These findings correlated well with those of our study. The occurrence of ESBL producers among gram negative bacilli in the current study was 135/219 (61.6%), while 73.5% E. coli, 60% Proteus vulgaris, 58.1% Klebsiella pneumoniae, 57.1% Acinetobacter lowffi, 50% Proteus mirabilis, 50% Citrobacter koserii and 37.1% Pseudomonas aeruginosa were found to elaborate ESBLs. [Table/Fig-9].

In the present study, we also observed that 73.5% E. coli and 58.1% Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates were ESBL producers. Although K. pneumoniae was more often reported as an ESBL producer in other studies, we observed that the ESBL production was more common in the E. coli isolates as compared to that in the K. pneumoniae isolates [14, 18, 19 ]. In Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the ESBL production was less (37.1%) as compared to that in other gram negative bacilli, because its resistance mechanism was mediated by the production of metallobetalactamase, lack of drug penetration due to mutations in the porins or due to the loss of certain outer membrane proteins and the efflux pump [16, 20, 21].

The PCDDT test was compared with DDST and it was found to be an inexpensive alternative for the DDST, for the detection of ESBL producers. The DDST lacks sensitivity because of the problem of optimal disc space and the correct storage of the clavulanic acid containing discs. Assuming that a laboratory is currently testing the sensitivity for ceftazidime by using the disc diffusion test and it required only one disc to be added to the sensitivity plate by PCDDT and would screen all gram negative bacteria in the diagnostic laboratory for ESBL production. This method is technically simple and inexpensive (22). The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) therefore, also recommended the use of PCDDT for the phenotypic confirmation of the ESBL producers among E. coli and K. pneumoniae (4).

In our study, we observed that a majority of the isolates were susceptible to imipenem (96.8%) and piperacillin/tazobactum (69.9%). Similarly, in a study from Coimbatore, all the members of Enterobacteriaceae were found to be susceptible to imipenem and piperacillin/tazobactum (23). In both the studies, amikacin also showed good activity against gram negative bacteria as compared to other antibiotics. Therefore, imipenem is the most active drug for the treatment of infections which are caused by ESBL producers, followed by piperacillin/tazobactum and amikacin. We need to keep in mind that carbapenem must be kept in reserve for non-life-threatening infections where other susceptible antibiotics can be used (17). The heavy use of carbapenem, in fact, may favour the selection of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (a species which is naturally resistant to these drugs) (24).

Cefpodoxime and ceftazidime have been proposed as the indicators of ESBL production as compared to cefotaxime and ceftriaxone (25). Only 2 ESBL producer strains, one of whichwas Proteus mirabilis, showed a sensitive pattern to ceftazidime and the second, Proteus vulgaris showed intermediate sensitivity to ceftazidime. All of the other isolates showed resistance to ceftazidime. So, ceftazidime is a better indicator for the detection of ESBL production as compared to cefotaxime and ceftriaxone, as was found in our study.

Many clinical laboratories are not fully aware of the importance of the ESBL producers and of methods to detect them. Laboratories may also lack the resources which are needed to curb the spread of these resistance mechanisms. This lack of understanding or resources is responsible for a continuing failure to respond appropriately to prevent the rapid, worldwide dissemination of the pathogens which possess these β-lactamases. The consequence of this has been avoidable therapeutic failures (sometimes fatal) in patients who received inappropriate antibiotics and outbreaks of infections which were caused by multidrug-resistant, gram negative pathogens that required expensive control efforts (12). Hence, their detection must be quick, for formulating an antibiotic policy and containment measures to solve the issue of antibiotic resistance.

Therefore, the regular detection of ESBLs by conventional methods should be carried out in every laboratory where molecular methods cannot be performed, as genotyping is used only for the detection and confirmation of ESBLs and as it is not informative for selecting the right treatment. However, the techniques which are required for the task of identifying the exact ESBL subtype (e.g. DNA probing, polymerase chain reaction, restriction fragment length polymorphism and isoelectric focusing) are available only at research facilities (26).

Conclusion

A committee must be formed at all hospitals, which should provide guidelines for the judicious use of antibiotics and should formulate policies which will help in minimizing the emergence of resistant bacteria among the patients. There is a possibility that the restricted use of antibiotics can lead to the withdrawal of selective pressure and that the resistant bacteria will no longer have a survival advantage against these antibiotics. To conclude, as we know, clinical laboratories are the first to encounter bacteria with new forms of antibiotic resistance and so they need appropriate tools to recognize these bacteria, including trained staff with sufficient time and equipment to follow up the important observations. Also, it is essential to report ESBL production along with the routine susceptibility testing, which will help the clinician in prescribing proper antibiotics. In the end, it has been felt that there is a need to formulate strategies to detect and prevent the emergence of ESBL producing strains for the effective treatment of infections which are caused by them.

References

1.
Samaha-Kfoury J N, Araj G F. Recent developments in β-lactamases and extended spectrum β-lactamases. BMJ 2003; 327:1209-13.
2.
Sturenburg E, Mack D. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases: implications for the clinical microbiology laboratory, therapy, and infection control. J Infect 2003; 47:273–95.
3.
Al-Jasser AM. Extended spectrum beta lactamases (ESBLs): A global problem. Kuwait Med J 2006;38(3):171-85.
4.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Iinstitute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Twentieth informational supplement ed. CLSI document M100-S20. Wayne, PA:CLSI; 2010.
5.
Jonathan N. Screening for extended-spectrum Beta-Lactamase-producing pathogenic enterobacteria in district general hospitals. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43(3):1488–90.
6.
AB Biodisk. E-test ceftazidime/ceftazidime + clavulanic acid package insert. Solna, Sweden: AB BIODISK; 2007.
7.
Kiratisin P, Apisarnthanarak A, Laesripa C, Saifon P. Molecular characterization and epidemiology of extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates causing health care-associated infections in Thailand, where the CTX-M family is endemic. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52(8): 2818-24.
8.
Karas JA, Pillay DG, Muckart D, Sturm AW. Treatment failure due to extended spectrum beta-lactamase. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37:203-04.
9.
Meyer KS, Urban C, Eagan JA, Berger BJ, Rahal JJ. Nosocomial outbreak of Klebsiella infection resistant to the late-generation cephalosporins. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119:353-58.
10.
Rice LB, Willey SH, Papanicolaou GA, Medeiros AA, Eliopoulos GM, Moellering RC, et al. Outbreak of ceftazidime resistance caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamases at a Massachusetts chroniccare facility. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34:2193-99.
11.
Wiener J, Quinn JP, Bradford PA, Goering RV, Nathan C, Bush K, et al. Multiple antibiotic-resistant Klebsiella and Escherichia coli in nursing homes. JAMA 1999; 281:517-23.
12.
Thompson KS. Contoversies about extended-spectrum and AmpC β-lactamases. Emerg Infect Dis 2001; 7:333-36.
13.
Subha A, Ananthan S. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) mediated resistance to the third generation cephalosporins among Klebsiella pneumoniae in Chennai. Indian J Med Microbiol 2002; 20:92-95.
14.
Babypadmini S, Appalaraju B. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases in the urinary isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae – prevalence and susceptibility pattern in a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Med Microbiol 2004; 22(3): 172-74.
15.
Mathur P, Kapil A, Das B, Dhawan B. Prevalence of extended spectrum β-lactamase producing gram negative bacteria in a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Med Res 2002; 115:153-57.
16.
Singhal S, Mathur T, Khan S, Upadhyay DJ, Chugh S, Gaind R et al. Evaluation of the methods for AmpC β-lactamase in gram negative clinical isolates from tertiary care hospitals. Indian J Med Microbiol 2005; 23(2):120-24.
17.
Rodrigues C, Joshi P, Jani SH, Alphonse M, Radhakrishnan R, et al. Detection of β-lactamases in nosocomial gram negative clinical isolates. Indian J Med Microbiol 2004; 22(4):247-50.
18.
Jarlier V, Nicolas MH, Fournier G, Philippon A. Extended broadspectrum beta-lactamases conferring transferable resistance to newer beta-lactam agents in Enterobacteriaceae: hospital prevalence and susceptibility patterns. Rev Infect Dis 1988; 10:867-78.
19.
Tankhiwale SS, Jalgaonkar SV, Ahamad S, Hassani U. Evaluation of extended spectrum beta lactamases in urinary isolates. Indian J Med Res 2004; 120:553-56.
20.
Walsh TR, Toleman MA, Poirel L, Nordmann P. Metallo-betalactamases: the quiet before the storm? Clin Microbiol Rev 2005; 18:306-25.
21.
Noyal MJ, Menezes GA, Harish BN, Sujatha S, Parija SC. Simple screening tests for the detection of carbapenemases in clinical isolates of nonfermentative, gram-negative bacteria. Indian J Med Res 2009; 129:707-12.
22.
Shukla I, Tiwari R, Agarwal M. Prevalence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Med Microbiol 2004; 22(2):87-91.
23.
Baby PS, Appala RB, Mani KR. Detection of Enterobacteriaceae producing CTX-M extended spectrum beta-lactamases from a tertiary care hospital in south India. Indian J Med Microbiol 2008; 26:163-66.
24.
Luzzaro F, Mezzatesta M, Mugnaioli C, Perilli M, Stefani S, et al. Extended-Spectrum β-lactamases among enterobacteria of medical interest: Report of the Second Italian Nationwide Survey. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44(5):1659-64.
25.
U Choudhary, R Aggarwal. Extended spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL) – an emerging threat to clinical therapeutics. Indian J Med Microbiol 2004; 22(2):75-80.
26.
Dutta P, Thakur A, Mishra B, Gupta V. Prevalence of clinical strains resistant to various β-lactams in a tertiary care hospital in India. Jpn J Infect Dis 2004; 57:146-49.

DOI and Others

ID: JCDR/3537:1926

Financial OR OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS:
None.


Date Of Submission: Aug 24, 2011
Date Of Peer Review: Oct 17, 2011
Date Of Acceptance: Dec 28, 2011
Date Of Publishing: Apr 15, 2012

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com