Show simple item record

 
dc.contributorVall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus
dc.contributor.authorBastos, Paulo
dc.contributor.authorMavromanolaki, Viktoria Eirini
dc.contributor.authorMaraki, Sofia
dc.contributor.authorSpiliopoulou, Anastasia
dc.contributor.authorBoattini, Matteo
dc.contributor.authorBianco, Gabriele
dc.contributor.authorLarrosa-Garcia, Maria
dc.contributor.authorVIÑADO, BELEN
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-04T06:35:41Z
dc.date.available2025-04-04T06:35:41Z
dc.date.issued2025-06
dc.identifier.citationBoattini M, Bianco G, Bastos P, Mavromanolaki VE, Maraki S, Spiliopoulou A, et al. Diagnostic and epidemiological landscape of anaerobic bacteria in Europe, 2020-2023 (ANAEuROBE). Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2025 Jun;65(6):107478.
dc.identifier.issn0924-8579
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11351/12895
dc.descriptionAnaerobes; Antimicrobial resistance; Blood culture
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Despite being implicated in a wide spectrum of community- and healthcare-acquired infections, anaerobes have not yet been incorporated into systematic surveillance programs in Europe. Methods We conducted a multicentre retrospective observational study analysing all anaerobic strains isolated from blood cultures in 44 European Hospital Centres over a 4-y period (2020–2023). Diagnostic approach, epidemiology, and antimicrobial susceptibility according to EUCAST v. 15.0 were investigated. Results Our study included 14,527 anaerobes, most of which were Gram-positive (45%) or Gram-negative (40%) bacilli. MALDI-TOF coupled to mass spectrometry was the most widely used tool for species identification (98%). Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed in the vast majority of centres, using mostly gradient diffusion strip (77%) and disk diffusion (45%) methods according to EUCAST guidelines. The most prevalent species were Cutibacterium acnes (18.7%), Bacteroides fragilis (16.3%), Clostridium perfringens (5.3%), Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron (4.2%), Fusobacterium nucleatum (3.5%), and Parvimonas micra (3.4%). C. acnes showed high resistance to benzylpenicillin (18%), clindamycin (39%), and imipenem (19% and 13% by MIC methods and disk diffusion, respectively). B. fragilis showed high resistance to amoxicillin/clavulanate (24%), piperacillin/tazobactam (22% and 14% by MIC methods and disk diffusion, respectively), clindamycin (22% by both MIC methods and disk diffusion), meropenem (13%), and metronidazole (10%, only by disk diffusion). A similar resistance pattern was observed in B. thetaiotaomicron, Bacteroides ovatus, and Parabacteroides distasonis. C. perfringens showed high resistance to clindamycin (69% and 45% by MIC methods and disk diffusion, respectively), while benzylpenicillin and metronidazole maintained over 90% activity. F. nucleatum showed high resistance to benzylpenicillin (11%), while Fusobacterium necrophorum showed alarming rates of resistance to clindamycin (12%), meropenem (16%) and metronidazole (11%). Conclusions This study presented an up-to-date analysis of the diagnostics and epidemiology of anaerobic bacteria in Europe, providing insights for future comparative analyses and the development of antimicrobial diagnostic and management strategies, as well as the optimization of current antibiotic treatments.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.ispartofseriesInternational Journal of Antimicrobial Agents;65(6)
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceScientia
dc.subjectMicroorganismes - Resistència als medicaments
dc.subjectBacteris anaerobis
dc.subjectMalalties bacterianes gramnegatives - Diagnòstic
dc.subject.meshBacteria, Anaerobic
dc.subject.meshBacteroides Infections
dc.subject.mesh/diagnosis
dc.subject.meshDrug Resistance, Microbial
dc.subject.meshBlood Culture
dc.titleDiagnostic and epidemiological landscape of anaerobic bacteria in Europe, 2020–2023 (ANAEuROBE)
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2025.107478
dc.subject.decsbacterias anaerobias
dc.subject.decsinfecciones por Bacteroides
dc.subject.decs/diagnóstico
dc.subject.decsfarmacorresistencia microbiana
dc.subject.decshemocultivo
dc.relation.publishversionhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2025.107478
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.audienceProfessionals
dc.contributor.organismesInstitut Català de la Salut
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Boattini M] Department of Public Health and Paediatrics, University of Torino, Turin, Italy. Microbiology and Virology Unit, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy. Lisbon Academic Medical Centre, Lisbon, Portugal. [Bianco G] Microbiology and Virology Unit, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy. Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy. [Bastos P] Department of Medical and Clinical Pharmacology, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France. [Mavromanolaki VE] Department of Paediatrics, Agios Nikolaos General Hospital, Crete, Greece. [Maraki S] Department of Clinical Microbiology and Microbial Pathogenesis, University Hospital of Heraklion, Crete, Greece. [Spiliopoulou A] Department of Microbiology, University of Patras, Medical School, Patras, Greece. [Larrosa Escartín MN, Viñado Perez MB] Servei de Microbiologia, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain. Department of Genetics and Microbiology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain. CIBER de Enfermedades Infecciosas (CIBERINFEC), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
dc.identifier.pmid40024606
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record