Genotypic characterization of hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae (hvKp) in a tertiary care Indian hospital.

Hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae (hvKp) is an emerging pathogen and causes endophthalmitis, liver abscess, osteomyelitis, meningitis, and necrotizing soft tissue infections in both immunodeficient and healthy people. The acquisition of the antibiotic resistance genes of hvKp has become an emerging concern throughout the globe. In this study, a total of 74 K. pneumoniae isolates were collected and identified by VITEK2 and blaSHV gene amplification. Out of these, 18.91% (14/74) isolates were identified as hvKp by both phenotypic string test and genotypic iucA PCR amplification. The antibiotic susceptibility revealed that 57.14% (8/14) isolates were multidrug-resistant (MDR) and 35.71% (5/14) isolates were extremely drug-resistant (XDR). All the isolates were resistant to ß-lactam, ß-lactamase + inhibitor groups of antibiotics, and the least resistance to colistin. Of 14 hvKp isolates, all isolates are positive for iroB (100%), followed by iutA (92.85%), peg344 (85.71%), rmpA (57.14%), and magA (21.42%) genes. Among serotypes, K1 was the most prevalent serotype 21.4% (3/14), followed by K5 14.3% (2/14). The most common carbapenemase gene was blaOXA-48 (78.57%) followed by blaNDM (14.28%) and blaKPC (14.28%) which co-carried multiple resistance genes such as blaSHV (100%), blaCTX-M (92.85%), and blaTEM (78.57%). About 92.85% (13/14) of hvKp isolates were strong biofilm producers, while one isolate (hvKp 10) was the only moderate biofilm producer. The (GTG)5-PCR molecular typing method revealed high diversity among the hvKp isolates in the tertiary care hospital. Our findings suggest that MDR-hvKp is an emerging pathogen and a challenge for clinical practice. In order to avoid hvKp strain outbreaks in hospital settings, robust infection control and effective surveillance should be implemented.

Evaluation of different methods for in vitro susceptibility testing of colistin in carbapenem resistant Gram-negative bacilli.

Introduction: The increasing antibiotic resistance like the advent of carbapenem resistant Enterobactarales (CRE), Carbapenem Resistant Acinetobacter baumanii (CRAB), and Carbapenem Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) has led to to the use of toxic and older drugs like colistin for these organisms. But worldwide there is an increase in resistance even to colistin mediated both by chromosomes and plasmids. This necessitates accurate detection of resistance. This is impeded by the unavailability of a user-friendly phenotypic methods for use in routine clinical microbiology practice. The present study attempts to evaluate two different methods - colistin broth disc elution and MIC detection by Vitek two in comparison to CLSI approved broth microdilution (BMD) for colistin for Enterobactarales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa , and Acinetobacter baumanii clinical isolates. Methods: Colistin susceptibility of 6013 carbapenem resistant isolates was determined by BMD, Colistin Broth Disc Elution (CBDE), and Vitek two methods and was interpreted as per CLSI guidelines. The MIC results of CBDE, Vitek two were compared with that of BMD and essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), sensitivity, specificity, very major error (VME), major error (ME) and Cohen's kappa (CK) was calculated. The presence of any plasmid-mediated colistin resistance (mcr-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) was evaluated in all colistin-resistant isolates by conventional polymerase chain reaction. Results: Colistin resistance was found in 778 (12.9 %) strains among the carbapenem resistant isolates. Klebsiella pneumoniae had the highest (18.9 %) colistin resistance by the BMD method. MIC of Vitek two had sensitivity ranging from 78.2-84.8% and specificity of >92 %. There were 171 VMEs and 323 MEs by Vitek two method, much more than CLSI acceptable range. The highest percentage of errors was committed for Acinetobacter baumanii (27.8 % of VME and 7.9 % ME). On the other hand, the CBDE method performed well with EA, CA, VME and ME within acceptable range for all the organisms. The sensitivity of the CBDE method compared to gold standard BMD varied from 97.5-98.8 % for different strains with a specificity of more than 97.6 %. None of the isolated colistin resistant organisms harboured mcr plasmids. Conclusion: As BMD has many technical complexities, CBDE is the best viable alternative available for countries like India. A sensitive MIC reported by Vitek two needs to be carefully considered due high propensity for VMEs particularly for Klebsiella spp.

ABO blood grouping and COVID-19: a hospital-based study in Eastern India.

Background: Blood group has been stated to be one of the risk factors associated with viral diseases like dengue, hepatitis virus, Norwalk virus and even the coronavirus associated with 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak. In addition, anti-A antibodies in experimental models have been shown to inhibit the interaction between coronavirus and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) receptor of the host target cell, the major receptor involved in viral pathogenesis. Thus, several workers propose an association between ABO blood type and coronavirus disease- 2019 (COVID-19) disease in many previous studies. The present study was undertaken in the Eastern part of India in line with these authors to study the association of ABO blood group of patients with COVID susceptibility and severity. Methods: This is a retrospective study over a period of 6 months from June 2020 to November 2020 where patients who underwent quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) test for SARS-COV2 and having a recorded patient blood group type were considered. The qRT-PCR positive admitted cases were considered as cases, and qRT-PCR negative cases were considered as controls. Data were entered in Microsoft Excel format and analyzed by statistical method to obtain association. Results: Consecutively obtained 5000 qRT-PCR positive patients (cases) and 11,700 (controls) were included in the present study. The mean age of cases was higher (54.24 vs. 34. 67) than the controls. Among the cases, the highest number (2379; 47.6%) of samples belonged to A blood group followed by B (1278; 25.6%) while among the control group O blood group had the highest prevalence (4215; 36%). Blood group A had a higher odd of testing positive (Odds ratio-2.552; CI 2.381-2.734; p < 0.0001) than all other blood groups. A blood group is also associated with higher risk of ICU admission (Odds ratio- 1.699; 95% CI 1.515-1.905) and 65.3% of this group is also associated with high viral load which gives an indication of higher disease severity. Conclusion: Blood group A is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID 19 infection than other blood groups. Cases of this blood group are also associated with more critical care needs and a higher viral load on testing.