Comparison of antimicrobial resistance and serotype patterns in <i>Streptococcus pneumoniae</i> from blood cultures and respiratory specimens in Canadian hospitals from the CANWARD study (2007–23)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the antimicrobial resistance and serotype patterns in Streptococcus pneumoniae collected from blood cultures and respiratory specimens in Canada from 2007 to 2023. METHODS: S. pneumoniae isolates were submitted from Canadian hospitals as part of the ongoing national surveillance study, CANWARD. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by the CLSI broth microdilution method. Serotypes were determined using WGS and/or the Quellung method. RESULTS: Of the 3111 S. pneumoniae isolates collected, 1103 (35.5%) were from blood cultures and 2008 (64.5%) were from respiratory specimens. The most common serotypes overall were 3, 19A, 22F and 11A. Serotypes 4, 5, 7F, 8, 12F, 14, 19A and 22F were more frequently identified (P ≤ 0.01) among blood culture isolates, while 6C, 7C, 11A, 19F, 21, 23A, 23B, 23F, 31, 34, 35B, 35F and non-typeable strains were more commonly recognized (P ≤ 0.03) among respiratory isolates. Susceptibility rates were significantly lower in respiratory isolates than blood culture isolates for penicillin, ceftriaxone, clarithromycin, clindamycin and doxycycline (P ≤ 0.03). Overall, 8.3% of isolates were MDR/XDR; rates increased over the course of the study (P = 0.004). MDR/XDR rates were higher in respiratory isolates (10.5%) than in blood culture isolates (5.8%) (P < 0.0001). Serotypes 19A (40.6%) and 15A (27.6%) were predominant in the MDR/XDR isolates. CONCLUSIONS: S. pneumoniae from respiratory specimens demonstrated lower antimicrobial susceptibilities and higher MDR rates compared with isolates from blood cultures. Significant differences in the serotypes isolated from blood culture and respiratory specimens were observed. A greater proportion of isolates from blood cultures were serotypes covered by current pneumococcal vaccines.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".