Antimicrobial resistance surveillance of Clostridioides difficile in Australia, 2015-18
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, ISSN: 1460-2091, Vol: 76, Issue: 7, Page: 1815-1821
2021
- 22Citations
- 8Usage
- 25Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations22
- Citation Indexes21
- 21
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Usage8
- Abstract Views8
- Captures25
- Readers25
- 25
Review Description
Background: Clostridioides difficile was listed as an urgent antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threat in a report by the CDC in 2019. AMR drives the evolution of C. difficile and facilitates its emergence and spread. The C. difficile Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CDARS) study is nationwide longitudinal surveillance of C. difficile infection (CDI) in Australia. Objectives: To determine the antimicrobial susceptibility of C. difficile isolated in Australia between 2015 and 2018. Methods: A total of 1091 strains of C. difficile were collected over a 3 year period by a network of 10 diagnostic microbiology laboratories in five Australian states. These strains were tested for their susceptibility to nine antimicrobials using the CLSI agar incorporation method. Results: All strains were susceptible to metronidazole, fidaxomicin, rifaximin and amoxicillin/clavulanate and low numbers of resistant strains were observed for meropenem (0.1%; 1/1091), moxifloxacin (3.5%; 38/1091) and vancomycin (5.7%; 62/1091). Resistance to clindamycin was common (85.2%; 929/1091), followed by resistance to ceftriaxone (18.8%; 205/1091). The in vitro activity of fidaxomicin [geometric mean MIC (GM)=0.101 mg/L] was superior to that of vancomycin (1.700 mg/L) and metronidazole (0.229 mg/L). The prevalence of MDR C. difficile, as defined by resistance to ≥3 antimicrobial classes, was low (1.7%; 19/1091). Conclusions: The majority of C. difficile isolated in Australia did not show reduced susceptibility to antimicrobials recommended for treatment of CDI (vancomycin, metronidazole and fidaxomicin). Resistance to carbapenems and fluoroquinolones was low and MDR was uncommon; however, clindamycin resistance was frequent. One fluoroquinolone-resistant ribotype 027 strain was detected.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85108741991&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkab099; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33895826; https://academic.oup.com/jac/article/76/7/1815/6250920; https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013/10702; https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11708&context=ecuworkspost2013; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkab099
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know