Identification of blaOXA23 and blaNDM1 from Carbapenem- resistant Acinetobacter baumannii at a Private Hospital in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to detect carbapenemase genes and their clonal relationships among carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) clinical isolates.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen CRAB isolates were collected from patients admitted to Phyathai II International Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand during August 2014 – April 2015. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification and DNA sequencing were used to identify blaOXA23, blaOXA40, blaOXA48, blaOXA58, blaIMP, blaVIM, blaKPC, and blaNDM. Clonal relationships were explored by using repetitive element palindromic (REP)-PCR.
RESULT: The CRAB isolates were categorized by REP-PCR in 8 groups [A-H], with 53.3% belonging to group A, whereas the remaining 7 clones were in each member of B-H, respectively. The blaOXA23 was detected in most CRAB isolates (86.7%) whereas only two isolates harbored blaNDM1 with blaOXA23 (13.3%).
CONCLUSION: Most CRAB strains carried blaOXA23 as reported in several related studies but our finding confirmed the emergence of CRAB carrying multiple types of carbapenemase genes in Thailand. This is a worrying phenomenon that concerns the spread of such CRAB genotypes.
Article Details
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
2. Ministerial Regulation on the Prescribing of Criteria andMethod of Conducting Health Checkup of Employees andForwarding the Results Of Health Checkup to Labour InspectorB.E. 2547 (2004).
3. Ministerial Regulation on the Prescribing of Standard forAdministration and Management of Occupational Safety,Health and Work Environment in Confined Space B.E. 2547(2004).
4. Ministry of Public Health Announcement Regarding to thePrinciple, Procedure and Condition when issued the MedicalCertificate to Demonstrate Readiness of the Seafarer On BoardB.E. 2559 (2016).
5. Summacheeva Foundation. Guideline for Standardization andInterpretation of Vision Tests in Occupational Health Setting;2016.
6. Titmus vision screener (TNO Occupational) – slides informationbrochure. Virginia: Sperian protection optical Inc., (AccessedAugust 15, 2018, at https://www.honeywellsafety.com/Supplementary/Documents_and_Downloads/Secured/Eye_and_Face_Protection/Vision_Screening/37078/1033.aspx.)
7. McAlister WH, Peters JK. The validity of Titmus vision testingresults. Mil Med 1990;155(9):396-400.
8. Health and environmental situation in Thailand. Nonthaburi:Minister of Public Health, 1997. (Accessed September 20,2018, at http://advisor.anamai.moph.go.th/main.php?filename=env105)
9. List of official ICD-10 updates ratified October 2006. Geneva:WHO, 2006. (Accessed August 15, 2018, at http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/2006Updates.pdf.)
10. Wayne W. Biostatistics - A foundations for analysis in theHealth Sciences. 6th ed. New York. Wiley & Sons;1995
11. Hassan H, Akbar F, Abbasali Y, et al. Global and regionalestimates of prevalence of refractive errors: Systematic reviewand meta-analysis. J Curr Ophthalmol 2018;30(1):3-22.
12. Holladay JT. Proper method for calculating average visualacuity. J Refract Surg 1997;13(4):388-91.
13. Stereo fly test. Chicaco: Stereo optical Co., Inc., 2017.(Accessed March 30, 2019, at https://www.stereooptical.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/LEA-symbols-FLY-2017-Usermanual-ONLY-12212017-2.pdf)
14. Sperian protection optical Inc. Job standards for use with theTitmus Vision Screener. Virginia: Sperian protection opticalInc.;2008.
15. Becker R, Gräf M. Landolt C and snellen e acuity:differences in strabismus amblyopia?. Klin MonblAugenheilkd 2006;223(1):24-8.
16. Latham K, Katsou MF, Rae S. Advising patients on visualfitness to drive: implications of revised DVLA regulations.Br J Ophthalmol 2015;99(4):545-8.
17. Chaikitmongkol V, Nanegrungsunk O, Patikulsila D, et al.repeatability and agreement of visual acuity using the ETDRSnumber chart, landolt C chart, or ETDRS alphabet ch art ineyes with or without sight-threatening diseases. JAMAOphthalmol 2018;136(3):286-290.
18. Moganeswari D, Thomas J, Srinivasan K, et al. Test re-testreliability and validity of different visual acuity and stereoacuitycharts used in preschool children. J Clin Diagn Res2015;9(11):NC01-5
19. Antona B, Barrio A, Sanchez I, Gonzalez E, et al. Intraexaminerrepeatability and agreement in stereoacuity measurementsmade in young adults. Int J Ophthalmol 2015;8(2):374-81.
20. Iwata Y, Tomoya H, Fusako F, et al. Effects of target size andtest distance on stereoacuity. J Ophthalmol 2016;2016:7950690.
21. Horberry T, Gale A, Taylor S. Vision screeners for displayscreen equipment users: an experimental. Displays1997;17(2):111-7.
22. Staden D, Mahomed FN, Govender S, et al. Comparing thevalidity of an online Ishihara colour vision test to thetraditional Ishihara handbook in a South African universitypopulation. Afr Vision Eye Health 2018;77(1), a370. https://doi. org/10.4102/aveh.v77i1.370.