<i>In Vitro</i> Activity of Imipenem against Carbapenemase-Positive Enterobacteriaceae Isolates Collected by the SMART Global Surveillance Program from 2008 to 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART) global surveillance program collected 103,960 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae from 2008 to 2014. From this isolate collection, all ertapenem-nonsusceptible isolates (MIC, ≥1 μg/ml; n = 3,428) and 9,371 isolates of Escherichia coli , Klebsiella pneumoniae , Klebsiella oxytoca , and Proteus mirabilis with an ertapenem-susceptible extended-spectrum-β-lactamase (ESBL)-positive phenotype were assessed for the presence of common carbapenemase genes using a Check-MDR CT101 microarray (Check-Points, Wageningen, the Netherlands) and published multiplex PCR assays. Testing identified 1,493 isolates that harbored a carbapenemase gene (1,485 ertapenem-nonsusceptible isolates and 8 ertapenem-susceptible ESBL-positive isolates) and accounted for 1.4% (1,493/103,960) of all isolates of Enterobacteriaceae . The most frequently identified carbapenemase genes were the KPC ( n = 794), OXA-48-like ( n = 300), and NDM ( n = 290) genes. Carbapenemase genes were most frequently identified in Klebsiella pneumoniae ( n = 1,127), Escherichia coli ( n = 149), and Enterobacter cloacae ( n = 110). Among the carbapenemase-positive isolates, 66.7% (2/3), 37.0% (111/300), 20.0% (8/40), 3.3% (3/92), 2.3% (18/794), and 0% (0/290) of the isolates with genes for GES, OXA-48-like, IMP, VIM, KPC, and NDM, respectively, were susceptible to imipenem (MIC, ≤1 μg/ml). Isolates that tested as susceptible to imipenem were not uncommon among carbapenemase-positive isolates (9.4%, 141/1,493) and most frequently carried OXA-48-like enzymes (78.7%; 111/141); however, overall, these isolates remained rare (0.1%, 141/103,960). The practice of screening clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae that test as susceptible to carbapenems in vitro for the presence of carbapenemase genes remains controversial and requires further study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".