MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097104206 · doi:10.1017/ice.2020.1137

Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Resistant Only to Ertapenem: An Epidemiologically Distinct Cohort, Atlanta, 2016–2018

2020· article· en· W3097104206 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chris Bower, Max W. Adelman, Jessica Howard‐Anderson, Uzma Ansari, Joseph D. Lutgring, Gebre Tiga, Jesse T. Jacob

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenIWK Health CentreUniversity of AlbertaProvincial Health Services AuthorityPublic Health AgencyMcGill UniversityPublic Health Agency of CanadaMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityBC Children's HospitalAlberta Health Services
KeywordsErtapenemCarbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceaeMicrobiologyCarbapenemKlebsiella pneumoniaeEnterobacter cloacaeEnterobacter aerogenesMedicinePopulationEnterobacteriaceaeBiologyAntibiotic resistanceEscherichia coliImipenemAntibioticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), particularly carbapenemase-producing (CP) CRE, pose a major public health threat. In 2016, the phenotypic definition of CRE expanded to include ertapenem resistance to improve sensitivity for detecting CP-CRE. We compared characteristics of CRE resistant to ertapenem only (CRE-EO) to CRE resistant to ≥1 other carbapenem (CRE-O). Methods: The Georgia Emerging Infections Program performs active, population-based CRE surveillance in metropolitan Atlanta. CRE cases were defined as any Escherichia coli , Klebsiella pneumoniae , K. oxytoca , K. variicola , Enterobacter cloacae complex, or Enterobacter aerogenes resistant to ≥1 carbapenem by the clinical laboratory and isolated from urine or a sterile site between 2016 and 2018. Data were extracted from retrospective chart review and 90-day mortality from Georgia vital statistics for 2016–2017. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for carbapenemase genes was performed on a convenience sample of isolates by the CDC or Georgia Public Health Laboratory. We compared characteristics of CRE-EO cases to CRE-O cases using χ 2 tests or t tests. Results: Among 927 CRE isolates, 553 (60%) were CRE-EO. CRE-EO were less frequently isolated from blood (5% vs 12%; P < .01) and less commonly K. pneumoniae (21% vs 58%; P < .01) than CRE-O. CRE-EO cases were more often women (65% vs 50%; P < .01), had a lower Charlson comorbidity index (mean ± SD, 2.4±2.3 vs 3.0±2.6; P < .01), and were less commonly at a long-term care facility (24% vs 31%) or hospital (15% vs 21%; P < .01) in the 4 days prior to the CRE culture. CRE-EO were more susceptible to all antibiotics tested at the clinical laboratory ( P < .01) except for tigecycline ( P = 1.0) (Table 1). Of the 300 (32%) isolates tested for carbapenemase genes, 98 (33%) were positive (7% CRE-EO vs 62% CRE-O; P < .01). Of the CP isolates, we identified bla KPC in 93 cases (95%), bla NDM in 3 cases (3%), bla OXA-48-like in 2 cases (2%). CRE-EO cases had lower 90-day mortality (13% vs 21%; P < .01). Conclusions: CRE-EO are epidemiologically distinct from CRE-O and are less likely to harbor carbapenemase genes. CRE-EO may require less intensive infection prevention interventions and have more therapeutic options. Funding: None Disclosures: None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection Control and Hospital EpidemiologySame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207