Abstract
Background:
Since the 1980s, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia has emerged as an important pathogen associated with significant mortality in pneumonia and bacteremia of severely immunocompromised, hospitalized patients. The drug of choice in S maltophilia infections is sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (SMX/TMP); SMX/TMP resistance is a serious concern in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of S maltophilia in lower respiratory tract (LRTI) samples at a tertiary-care university hospital.
Methods:
This retrospective cohort study was carried out using microbiological data collected between January 2008 and December 2017. Routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed for SMX/TMP and levofloxacin; in case of resistance, susceptibility testing for additional antibiotics (tigecycline, amikacin, and colistin) was also performed.
Results:
A total of 579 individual S maltophilia isolates were identified (2008-2012: n = 160, 2013-2017: n = 419; P = .0008). In all, 78.46% of patients were younger than 5 or older than 50 years of age and had recent trauma, surgery, or underlying conditions (malignancies, respiratory distress syndrome, congenital disorders, and cystic fibrosis). In 28.16% of samples, more than 1 pathogen was identified, and 5.35% of coisolated pathogens were multidrug resistant (MDR). In all, 12.1% of isolates were SMX/TMP-resistant (2008-2012: 6.12%, 2013-2017: 18.06%; P = .034), while 8.99% were resistant to levofloxacin (2008-2012: 7.86%, 2013-2017: 10.12%; P > .05). SMX/TMP resistance was detected more frequently in samples originating from inpatients (n = 2.50 ± 2.39 vs n = 11.50 ± 3.76; P = .0002).
Conclusions:
In all, 5.87% of isolates were extensively drug resistant (XDR), that is, in addition to SMX/TMP, they were resistant to levofloxacin, amikacin, colistin, and tigecycline. The results of our study correspond to the findings in the literature.
Keywords: Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, pneumonia, tracheobronchitis, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, levofloxacin, colistin, antibiotic resistance, tigecycline
Introduction
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a nonfermenting Gram-negative rod that is ubiquitous in nature (predominantly occurring in aquatic environments and on plants)1. Biochemically, it is catalase positive and oxidase negative, and it produces acid from maltose (hence the name “maltophilia”).2,3 Due to its charged cell wall surface and biofilm production, it may attach to and survive on abiotic surfaces in clinical settings (eg, central venous catheters, disinfectant and hand-washing solutions, solutions for hemodialysis, endoscopes, inspiration/expiration circuits of ventilators, nebulizers, tap water, and showerheads).1,4–7 This pathogen is frequently responsible for nosocomial outbreaks, especially in intensive care units (ICUs).6,8,9 Before the 1980s, there have been seldom reports of the isolation of this microorganism in the context of human infections10; however, after the 1980s, the prevalence of nosocomial infections associated with S maltophilia has increased rapidly.11 On the one hand, S maltophilia is a pathogen of low virulence and limited invasiveness; therefore, bypassing the natural defenses of the body is crucial for the development of any pathologies.1,4,10–12 Advancements in medical interventions (complex surgeries, chemotherapy of advanced malignancies, immunosuppressive therapy for organ transplantation, or autoimmune disorders) have also resulted in the increase in the number of patients at risk.1,4,10–12 Nonetheless, advancements in the identification methods in clinical microbiology laboratories (eg, polymerase chain reaction, mass spectrometry, and sequencing) have allowed for the more precise identification of this pathogen.13–15 To complicate things even further, the prevalence of community-acquired S maltophilia infections (presumably due to the increase in the number of immunocompromised/debilitated patients in outpatient care settings) has also increased since the 2000s.16
The main clinical manifestations of S maltophilia infections include nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs; namely, tracheobronchitis/pneumonia, usually associated with mechanical ventilation) and bacteremia. Nevertheless, other manifestations, for example, wound/soft tissue infections (ie, ecthyma gangrenosum), cellulitis, mastoiditis, meningitis, peritonitis, bone and joint infections, urinary tract infections, conjunctivitis, and otitis media have also been described.4,9–11 These infections usually occur in severely debilitated, immunosuppressed individuals, in addition to patients with a chronic illness or a developmental abnormality affecting a specific organ system.4,9–11,17–19 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia represents the fourth most common pathogen among nonfermenting gram-negative bacteria (following Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp, and Burkholderia cepacia complex), with a reported incidence of 7.1 to 37.7 cases/10 000 discharges (regarding nosocomial infections)20. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections are associated with a high crude mortality of 25% to 75% in case of pneumonia and 20% to 60% in case of bacteremia.3 The mortality rate increases sharply if the patients receive inappropriate antimicrobial therapy (which mainly occurs empirically)3,4,9–11.
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia may colonize the respiratory tract and persist in the sputum of these patients for a long period of time; therefore, it may be difficult to ascertain the clinical significance of a positive culture result from the microbiology laboratory.21,22 However, previously verified colonization is one of the main risk factors for manifestation of S maltophilia LRTI; thus, culture positivity for this microorganism does pertain clinically useful information.6,21,22 While some reports suggest that S maltophilia LRTIs are characterized by the lack of acute inflammatory response, Di Bonaventura et al found an pronounced inflammatory response (increased expression of IL-8 and TNF-α) in murine airway epithelial cells and macrophages, which may contribute to airway inflammation in vivo.23,24 Histologically, S maltophilia LRTIs are frequently characterized by focal lung necrosis and lung hemorrhage, while pleural effusions and cavitations are rarely observed.20 As many S maltophilia infections are polymicrobial, clinicians should be extremely cautious when interpreting radiological findings (especially in patients with cancer), as several copathogens (eg, Pseudomonas spp, Acinetobacter spp, Nocardia spp, Staphylococcus aureus, and opportunistic fungi) may be present simultaneously.1,4,10–12 In severely immunosuppressed patients, fatal hemorrhagic pneumonia may occur, which is the fulminant course of the infection.10–12 In addition, S maltophilia is a well-known colonizer and pathogen in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF); it has been described that the colonization/infection rate (especially in 105-106 CFU) correlates well with disease progression and loss of lung function.25,26 Air-borne transmission of this microorganism from the cough (aerosol) of patients with CF have also been described.25,26
The therapeutic options regarding S maltophilia infections are very limited, owing to the intrinsic resistance of this pathogen to several classes of antibiotics: β-lactam antibiotics (most notably carbapenems) are hydrolyzed by zinc-dependent, chromosomally mediated β-lactamases (namely, L1 and L2), aminoglycosides (acetyl-transferases and temperature-dependent changes in the lipopolysaccharide), while a plethora of other drugs may be affected by the overexpression of energy-dependent efflux pumps.4,7,9–11,20 Currently, the therapy of choice in these infections is a high-dose sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (SMX/TMP; cotrimoxazole)1,9–11. Although a recent publication by Ko et al has reported that fluoroquinolones (a popular alternative to cotrimoxazole) are equally effective in the therapy of these infections27, SMX/TMP resistance (among other things, as drug allergies may also be present) is a serious therapeutic challenge for clinicians. Due to the proclivity of this microorganism to become multidrug resistant (MDR) and extensively drug resistant (XDR), it has been listed by the World Health Organization as one of the most concerning multidrug resistant organisms worldwide.28 Apart from SMX/TMP and fluoroquinolones, other drugs that may be considered for therapy (and several case reports are available in successfully curing patients) are the tetracyclines (doxycycline, minocycline, and tigecycline), ticarcillin/clavulanate, ceftazidime, colistin, and chloramphenicol4,7,9–11,20.
Despite the abundance of global surveillance studies published, there are only few reports assessing the microbiological and clinical significance of S maltophilia in LRTIs, as the majority of studies have focused on the isolation of MDR Pseudomonas spp and Acinetobacter spp. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of S maltophilia in respiratory tract specimens at a tertiary-care hospital in Hungary retrospectively, during a 10-year study period (2008-2017).
Materials and Methods
Characteristics of the Study and the Clinical Center
This study was performed on the basis of retrospectively collected microbiological data regarding a 10-year time period on January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017. Our institute is the dedicated microbiological diagnostic laboratory of a 1820-bed tertiary-care teaching hospital in Szeged (Hungary), which is responsible for the medical care of >400 000 patients in the southern region of Hungary. Data were collected by an electronic search of the Institutional laboratory information system records for the designated time period, which was conducted by the authors. Isolates were considered separate if their isolation happened >14 days apart, or S maltophilia isolates with different antibiotic susceptibility results were detected from the same patient. Polymicrobial infection was defined by the isolation of more than 1 organism in a single sample.29 As a part of this study, data on the affected patients were also collected, which was limited to demographic characteristics (age, sex, and inpatient/outpatient status) and the indication for sample submission. The relevant data were collected if S maltophilia was isolated in significant colony count from the samples of the abovementioned patients. The study was deemed exempt from ethics review by the institutional review board, and informed consent was not required as data anonymity was maintained.
Processing of Microbiological Samples, Identification, and Susceptibility Testing
Respiratory sampling from patients was performed in line with current recommendations with international guidelines, respective to each individual sample type. The processing of respiratory tract samples was based on current international guidelines of routine clinical bacteriology; culture plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 to 48 hours, aerobically. For bacterial identification, classical phenotypic methods and VITEK 2 Compact ID/AST (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France) were used between 2008 and 2012; however, starting with 2013, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS; Bruker Daltonik GmbH, Germany) was introduced to the diagnostic workflow of our laboratory. Sample preparation methods and technical specifications for MALDI-TOF MS measurements are described elsewhere.30 Susceptibility testing for S maltophilia isolates was performed for SMX/TMP and levofloxacin routinely; if SMX/TMP resistance was detected, supplementary antibiotics (tigecycline, amikacin, and colistin) were also tested. The susceptibility testing methods utilized and the interpretative criteria were described elsewhere in detail.29
Statistical Analyses
Data for analysis were collected from the MedBakter laboratory information system, while the management of data and the preparation of data for statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel 2013 (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Washington). Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS software version 24 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows 24.0; IBM Corp Armonk, New York). The normality of variables was tested using Shapiro-Wilk tests. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results
A total of 579 S maltophilia isolates were identified (57.9 ± 31.0/year, highest in 2015, lowest in 2008) from various respiratory samples between 2008 and 2017. The number of isolates between 2008 and 2012 was n = 160 (32.0 ± 5.33/year, range: 24-38), while for 2013 to 2017 this number was n = 419 (83.8 ± 21.53/year, range: 55-111). A sizable (P = .0008) increase was observed in the detection of S maltophilia in the second part of the study period (2013-2017). The affected patients presented with a pronounced male dominance (female-to-male ratio: 0.69; 63.84% male); the median age of the affected patients was 55 years (range: 0-96 years), both in the inpatient and outpatient groups. The age distribution of patients was as follows: 16.03% 0 to 5 years, 3.84% 6 to 17 years, 6.51% 18 to 35 years, 11.20% 36 to 50 years, 26.24% 51 to 65 years, and 36.19% of patients were older than 65 years.
Tracheal aspirates were the most common samples type (65.28%), followed by sputum samples (17.20%), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL; 16.82%, including and bronchoscopic BAL and MiniBAL), in addition to samples attained through pleural and pericardial puncture (0.35% each). Indications for the submission of the abovementioned positive samples included septicemia (19.17%), hematological malignancies (predominantly acute myeloid leukemia) and solid tumors (lung, stomach, and colon cancer; 16.23%), recent trauma, burns or invasive surgery (13.47%), congetinal disorders or preterm delivery (12.78%), pneumonia, pleuritis or acute respiratory distress syndrome (11.07%), cardiovascular illnesses (10.89%), cystic fibrosis (6.91%), meningitis (5.54%), or other reasons (3.94%). The largest amount of isolates originated from the intensive care units (which has 3 subsections, namely, cardiology–hematology, surgery, and traumatology; 47.49%), department of internal medicine (27.29%), department of pediatrics and neonatology (9.86%), department of otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery (8.11%), department of oncology (5.78%), and other affiliated institutions (1.47%). At the time of isolation, 24.89% of affected patients were treated as outpatients; the number of isolates from outpatient samples was significantly higher in the second half of the study period (n = 40 vs n = 103; P < .04).
In 71.84% of relevant respiratory samples, S maltophilia was the only isolated pathogen, whereas in 28.16%, more than 1 (2 in 18.13%, 3 in 6.05%, 4 in 2.76%, and 5 or more in 1.21%) different species could be isolated (Table 1). Other nonfermenting Gram-negative and Candida species were the most frequent species coisolated. Pseudomonas aeruginosa (in 57 cases) and C albicans (in 54 cases) were the most frequent coisolates; 5.35% of coisolated pathogens were MDR (including MDR P aeruginosa, methicillin-resistant S aureus [MRSA], and extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing [ESBL] Enterobacteriaceae).
Table 1.
Coisolates in Relevant Respiratory Samples | Frequency, n |
---|---|
Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 57 |
Candida albicans | 54 |
Candida glabrata | 23 |
Klebsiella pneumoniae (including ESBL producers) | 20 |
Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA) | 20 |
Acinetobacter baumannii | 12 |
Enterobacter cloacae (including ESBL producers) | 7 |
Escherichia coli (including ESBL producers) | 6 |
Candida tropicalis | 4 |
Serratia marcescens | 4 |
Proteus vulgaris | 4 |
Candida krusei | 3 |
Aspergillus fumigatus | 3 |
Escherichia faecium | 3 |
Morganella morganii | 3 |
Acinetobacter niger | 2 |
Candida inconspicua | 2 |
Citrobacter freundii | 2 |
Citrobacter freundii | 2 |
Klebsiella oxytoca | 2 |
Enterobacter cloacae | 1 |
Enterobacter kobei | 1 |
Hafnia alvei | 1 |
Abbreviations: ESBL, extended-spectrum β-lactamase MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
During the 10-year period, almost 88% (87.90%) of respiratory S maltophilia were susceptible to SMX/TMP, while levofloxacin susceptibility (Minimum Inhibitory Concentration [MIC] range: 0.5-64 mg/L) was shown to be somewhat higher (91.01%). This left 12.1% of isolates (2008-2012: 6.12%; 2013-2017: 18.06%; P = .034) resistant to SMX/TMP and 8.99% of isolates (2008-2012: 7.86%; 2013-2017: 10.12%; P > .05) resistant to levofloxacin, respectively. Of the SMX/TMP-resistant S maltophilia strains, 71.42% was also resistant to amikacin (MIC range: 1-32 mg/L), 10.20% for tigecycline (MIC range: 1-32 mg/L), and 8.57% for colistin (MIC range: 0.25-256 mg/L). It is worth noting that in 5.87% of isolates, resistance to SMX/TMP, levofloxacin, amikacin, tigecycline, and colistin was present simultaneously; therefore, these isolates should be considered XDR strains. The SMX/TMP resistance was detected more frequently in samples originating from inpatients (n = 2.50 ± 2.39 vs n = 11.50 ± 3.76; P = .0002), while a numerical but not statistical tendency was observed for levofloxacin resistance (n = 4.49 ± 0.23 vs n = 5.86 ± 0.91; P = .078).
Discussion
The amount of specific studies regarding the prevalence and resistance trends of S maltophilia isolates in LRTI samples is very limited, the available literature concerning this topic is summarized by the authors in Table 2. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia LRTIs are thought to be infrequent, but their clinical relevance is increasing in the era of surgical interventions and heavily immunosuppressed patients.1–4,9–11,16–22 The presence of obstruction in the lungs creates advantageous conditions for several opportunistic pathogens to cause infections, including S maltophilia, in addition obstruction has been shown to be an independent risk factor for a poor outcome.3 In line with the findings of other studies, we have demonstrated that most of the affected patients were very young or older than 50 years of age (78.46% of patients in the present study), with an observed male dominance in the patient population. A possible explanation for this phenomenon is that males are more prone to contract S maltophilia, due to their activities in the outdoors/aquatic environments.3 Based on our results, we have noted an increase in the isolation rate of S maltophilia from LRTI samples, in addition to an increase in its prevalence in outpatient settings. The introduction of MALDI-TOF MS in our institute may explain the increase in the detection of these species; additionally, carbapenem prescription levels (both in the region and in Hungary overall) have increased dramatically (mainly due to the emergence of ESBL-positive strains) which may also have resulted in a more pronounced selection pressure for S maltophilia isolates.49
Table 2.
First Author | Study Years | Country | Number of Centers | % of Respiratory Isolates in the Study | Ratio of Susceptible Isolates | Susceptibility to Additional Antibiotics Patient Data (if available) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SMX/TMP | CIP or LEV | TIC/CLAV | CEFTZ | MINO | COL | ||||||
Vartivarian et al31 | 1991-1994 | United States (Texas) | Single center | 29.2 | 75.0% | 16.0% | 43.0% | 78.0% | 97.0% | – | – |
Gopalakrishnan et al32 | 1995-1996 | United States (Miami) | Two community hospitals | 88.5 | 95.1% | – | – | – | – | – | 51% male patients; average age: 62 years; 88.8% mechanical ventilation |
Aisenberg et al33 | 1997-2004 | United States (Texas) | Single center | 100 | 93%-95% | – | 64%-70% | – | – | – | Male dominance (63%); average age: 58-63 years; 59.25% neutropenic and/or ICU patient |
Sader et al34 | 1997-2001 | SENTRY (Latin America) | Multicenter | 100 | 100% | 90.0% | 51.7% | 46.7% | – | 59.2% | – |
Gülmez et al35 | 1998-2003 | Turkey | Single center | 40.0 | 71.7% | CIP: 7.8% | – | – | – | – | AMK susceptibility: 15.1%; PIP/TAZO susceptibility: 2.2% |
Tan et al36 | 1999-2004 | China (Taiwan) | Single center | 85.7 | – | – | – | – | – | – | Male dominance (64.7%); average age: 73 years; 70% of isolates were extensively drug resistant (XDR) S maltophilia (SMX/TMP + fluoroquinolone + third agent) |
Gales et al20 | 2001-2004 | SENTRY (International) | Worldwide | 100 | 97.0% | 86.9% | 47.6% | 52.4% | – | – | – |
Farell et al36 | 2003-2008 | International | Worldwide | 37.0 | 96.0% | 83.4% | – | 48.8% | – | 64.6% | TGC susceptibility: 95.5% |
Naeem et al37 | 2003-2009 | Saudi Arabia | Single center | 59.0 | 90.6% | 23.0% | – | 42.8% | – | – | PIP/TAZO susceptibility: 39.2%; GEN susceptibility: 12.6%; male dominance (56.3%); patients older than 50 years: 47.3%; patients in ICU 60.4% |
Saguel et al38 | 2005-2009 | Germany | Single center | 100 | >95.0% | – | – | – | – | 80.0% | Male dominance (66.0%); 100% ICU patients |
Flores-Trevino et al39 | 2006-2013 | Mexico | Two tertiary-care hospitals | 61.3 | 67.2% | CIP: 38.7%; LEV: 95.8% | – | 44.5% | – | – | AMK susceptibility: 14.3%; CHL susceptibility: 44.5% |
Sun et al40 | 2006-2012 | China | Single center | 21.6 | 57.1% | 83.3% | – | – | – | – | PIP/TAZO susceptibility: 76.2% |
Gozel et al41 | 2006-2013 | Turkey | Single center | 50.7 | 100% | 89.0% | – | 22.0% | – | – | AMK susceptibility: 0%; average age: 68 years; male dominance (69.4%) |
Rodriguez et al42 | 2007-2008 | Brazil | Single center | 100 | 98.4% | 97.6% | 77.0% | 46.0% | – | – | – |
Juhász et al43 | 2009-2011 | Hungary | Single center | 58.0 | 99.9% | 75.0% | – | – | – | 9.0% | TGC susceptibility: 12.0% |
Jia et al44 | 2010-2012 | China | Single center | 83.3 | 74.3% | 96.7% | – | – | 99.5% | – | Male dominance (55.9%); most isolates originated from ICU patients and patients older than 60 years |
Rutter et al45 | 2010-2014 | United States (Kentucky) | Single center | 100 | 91.0% | 62.0% | – | – | 100.0% | – | Cystic fibrosis patients; S maltophilia was the third most common among nonfermenting gram-negative bacteria |
Chawla et al46 | 2012-2013 | India | Single center | 100 | 72.7% | 78.8% | – | – | – | – | Male dominance (72.7%), median age: 55 years, mechanical ventilation or chronic respiratory illness in the anamnestic data of patients |
Madi et al47 | 2013-2015 | Serbia | Single center | 100 | 100% | 100% | – | – | – | – | Respiratory samples from cystic fibrosis and noncystic fibrosis patients |
Nayyar et al48 | 2015-2016 | India | Single center | 65.2 | 91.3% | 80.0% | – | – | – | – | Pediatric patients; male dominance (78.2%) |
Abbreviations: AMK, amikacin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CEFTZ, ceftazidime; CHL, chlroramphenicol; GEN, gentamicin; ICU, intensive care unit; LEV, levofloxacin; MINO, minocycline; PIP/TAZO, piperacillin/tazobactam; SMX/TMP, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim; TIC/CLAV, ticarcillin/clavulanic acid; TGC, tigecycline; XDR, extensively drug resistant.
The local levels of SMX/TMP resistance were similar to those found in the global literature (Western Hemisphere: 2%-10%; however, some outliers with higher resistance levels [eg, Spain: 27%; Turkey 10%-15%] in Europe and Asia [Taiwan: > 25%; China: 30%-48%]) but somewhat higher than the European average.7 In a similar study recently published by Gajdács et al in the same geographical region, 16.0% of isolates from bacteremia were resistant to SMX/TMP, and of these resistant strains, 32.7% were also resistant to levofloxacin, tigecycline, and colistin (thus, 5.2% overall were XDR isolates).29 In contrast, during our current study regarding respiratory isolates, it was found that the levels of SMX/TMP and LEV resistance were lower (12.1% and 8.99%, respectively), while the ratio of XDR isolates was higher, recorded at 5.87%. It must be noted that in patients with malignant neoplasms, ICU patients, and patients with CF, resistance levels may be even higher (20%-80%).4 The matter of SMX/TMP resistance is complex, as there is no definite consensus or guideline on the susceptibility testing and interpretation (breakpoints) for S maltophilia for several antibiotics, which may lead to confusion when interpreting published clinical data. Institutions must establish therapeutic protocols for these cases based on local resistance trends and international guidelines. In addition, more studies are needed to assess the relevance of various combination therapies in a controlled clinical setting.50
Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, due to the inability to access the medical records of the individual affected patients, the presence and nature of symptoms of the patients were unknown. Additionally, the correlation between the presence/absence of all relevant risk factors and S maltophilia isolation from the respiratory tract could not be assessed. There is also a risk of selection/referral bias, as studies describing the prevalence of infectious diseases and resistance trends are mainly tertiary-care centers, which generally correspond to patients with more severe conditions or underlying illnesses, compared to community-based settings29.
In this present study, we observed the increasing prevalence of S maltophilia from respiratory tract specimens; the increase in prevalence may be due to the developments in diagnostic technologies in microbiology laboratories; however, there have been reports that isolation of S maltophilia increases proportionally with the utilization rate of carbapenem antibiotics (which provides selection pressure). Due to the increasing prevalence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing gut bacteria in severe infections in Hungary, this observation correlates with the increased administration of carbapenems. The key points of the present study are the reporting of resistance trends of S maltophilia in the Central Eastern part of Europe, from where only few reports were published thus far; while the ratio of resistant strains to SMX/TMP and LEV (10.12% and 8.99%, respectively) is not outliers from the data found in the international literature, more than 1 of 20 of these respiratory isolates were representative of the XDR phenotype. For severely debilitated, immunocompromised patients, this corresponds to a very severe therapeutic conundrum, with little or no antimicrobial options left to treat them.1,29 Both in the literature and based on our own results, S maltophilia was isolated with another significant pathogen. Therapeutically, this may bring forth additional challenges, especially if the mentioned copathogen is also resistant to several antibiotics (eg, ESBL Enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter, and MRSA).51–53 The use of inhalational/aerosolized antibiotics may have an important role in the therapy of these LRTI infections; their use is gaining increasing attention, in addition to combinational antibiotic therapy.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Tünde Deák and Erika Karasz for the excellent laboratory assistance during the routine diagnostic work.
Author Biographies
Márió Gajdács graduated as a Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) at the University of Szeged in 2016 and as a medical translator-interpreter in 2018. He received his PhD from the Experimental chemotherapy/Medical microbiology program of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged. He is currently in the process of becoming a specialized pharmacist in “Pharmacology, pharmacotherapy” and an assistant professor at the Department of Pharmacodynamics and Biopharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged.
Edit Urbán graduated as a Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) at the University of Szeged in 1989, as a specialist in laboratory medicine in 1996, and as a clinical microbiologist in 1999. She received her PhD in Clinical microbiology in 2002 from the Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged. She is currently a full professor at the University of Szeged.
Authors’ Note: M.G. conceived and designed the study. E.U. was the senior microbiologist and performed the identification of the bacterial isolates during the study period. M.G. and E.U. performed data collection and analysis, wrote, and revised the full article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: M.G. was supported by the National Youth Excellence Scholarship [Grant Number NTP-NTFÖ-18-C-0225] and the ESCMID Mentorship and Observership Programme.
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD: Márió Gajdács https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1270-0365
References
- 1. Adegoke AA, Stenström TA, Okoh AI. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia as an emerging ubiquitous pathogen: looking beyond contemporary antibiotic therapy. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Carmody LA, Spilker T, LiPuma JJ. Reassessment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia phenotype. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(3):1101–1103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Singhal L, Kaur P, Gautam V. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: from trivial to grievous. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2017;35(4):469–479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Brooke JS. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: an emerging global opportunistic pathogen. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25(1):2–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Cervia JS, Ortolano GA, Canonica FP. Hospital tap water as a source of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(9):1485–1487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Looney WJ. Role of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in hospital-acquired infection. Br. J. Biomed Sci. 2005;62(3):145–154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Brooke JS. New strategies against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: a serious worldwide intrinsically drug-resistant opportunistic pathogen. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2014;12(1):1–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Gulcan H, Kuzucu C, Durmaz R. Nosocomial Stenotrophomonas maltophilia cross-infection: three cases in newborns. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32(6):365–368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Rajkumari N, Mathur P, Gupta AK, Sharma K, Misra M.C. Epidemiology and outcomes of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Burkholderia cepacia infections among trauma patients of India: a five year experience. J Infect Prev. 2015;16(3):103–110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Denton M, Kerr KG. Microbiological and clinical aspects of infection associated with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1998;11(1):57–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Gilardi GL. Pseudomonas maltophilia infections in man. Am J Clin Pathol. 1969;51(1):58–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Wang Y, He T, Shen Z, Wu C. Antimicrobial resistance in Stenotrophomonas spp. Microbiol Spectr. 2018;6(1):1–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Schaumann R, Knoop N, Genzel GH. et al. Discrimination of enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenting gram negative bacilli by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Open Microbiol J. 2013;7:118–122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Steensels D, Verhaegen J, Lagrou K. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry for the identification of bacteria and yeasts in a clinical microbiological laboratory: a review. Acta Clin Belg. 2011;66(4):267–273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Gautam V, Sharma M, Singhal L. et al. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: An emerging tool for unequivocal identification of non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli. Indian J Med Res. 2017;145(5):665–672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Falagas M.E, Kastoris AC, Vouloumanou EK, Dimopoulos G. Community-acquired stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections: a systematic review. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009;28(7):719–730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Falagas ME, Kastoris AC, Vouloumanou EK, Rafailidis PI, Kapaskelis AM, Dimopoulos G. Attributable mortality of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections: a systematic review of the literature. Future Microbiol. 2009;4(9):1103–1109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. del Toro MD, Rodríguez-Bano J, Herrero M. et al. Clinical epidemiology of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia colonization and infection: a multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2002;81(3):228–239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Al-Anazi KA, Al-Jasser AM. Infections caused by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Front Oncol. 2014;4:232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Gales A.C, Jones RN, Forward KR, Liñares J, Sader HS, Verhoef J. Emerging importance of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter species and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia as pathogens in seriously ill patients: geographic patterns, epidemiological features, and trends in the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program (1997-1999). Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32(suppl 2):S104–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Millar FA, Simmonds NJ, Hodson ME. Trends in pathogens colonising the respiratory tract of adult patients with cystic fibrosis, 1985-2005. J Cyst Fibros. 2009;8(6):386–391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Bostanghadiri N, Ghalavand Z, Fallah F. Characterization of phenotypic and genotypic diversity of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strains isolated from selected hospitals in Iran. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Di Bonaventura G, Pompilio A, Zappacosta R. et al. Role of excessive inflammatory response to Stenotrophomonas maltophilia lung infection in DBA/2 mice and implications for cystic fibrosis. Infect Immun. 2010;78(6):2466–2476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Pompilio A, Ciavardelli D, Crocetta V. et al. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia virulence and specific variations in trace elements during acute lung infection: implications in cystic fibrosis. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e88769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Berdah L, Taytard J, Leyronnas S, Clement A, Boelle PY, Corvol H. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: a marker of lung disease severity. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2018;53(4):426–430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Barsky EE, Williams KA, Priebe GP, Sawicki GS. Incident Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection and lung function decline in cystic fibrosis. Pediatr. Pulmonol. 2017;52(10):1276–1282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ko JH, Kang CI, Cornejo-Juárez P. et al. Fluoroquinolones versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for the treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019;25(5):546–554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Gajdács M. The concept of an ideal antibiotic: implications for drug design. Molecules. 2019;24(5):E892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Gajdács M, Urbán E. Epidemiological trends and resistance associated with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia bacteremia: a 10-year retrospective cohort study in a tertiary-care hospital in Hungary. Diseases. 2019;7(2):E41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Gajdács M, Spengler G, Urbán E. Identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria: Rubik’s cube of clinical microbiology? Antibiotics. 2017;6(4):E25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Vartivarian S, Anaissie E, Bodey G, Sprigg H, Rolston K. A changing pattern of susceptibility of Xanthomonas maltophilia to antimicrobial agents: implications for therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994;38(3):624–627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Gopalakrishnan R, Hawley HB, Czachor JS, Markert RJ, Bernstein JM. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection and colonization in the intensive care units of two community hospitals: a study of 143 patients. Heart Lung. 1999;28(2):134–141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Aisenberg G, Rolston KV, Dickey BF, Kontoyiannis DP, Raad II, Safdar A. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia pneumonia in cancer patients without traditional risk factors for infection, 1997-2004. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007;26(1):13–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Sader HS, Jones RN, Gales AC, Silva JB, Pignatari AC. SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program report: latin American and Brazilian results for 1997 through 2001. Braz J Infect Dis. 2004;8(1):25–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Gülmez D, Hasçelik G. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: antimicrobial resistance and molecular typing of an emerging pathogen in a Turkish university hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005;11(11):880–886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Tan CK, Liaw SJ, Yu CJ, Teng LJ, Hsueh PR. Extensively drug-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in a tertiary care hospital in Taiwan: microbiologic characteristics, clinical features, and outcomes. Diagn Microbiol Infect. Dis. 2008;60(2):205–210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Naeem T, Absar M, Somily AM. Antibiotic resistance among clinical isolates of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia at a teaching hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2012;24(2):30–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Saugel B, Eschermann K, Hoffmann R. et al. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in the respiratory tract of medical intensive care unit patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;31(7):1419–1428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Flores-Treviño S, Gutiérrez-Ferman JL, Morfín-Otero R. et al. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in Mexico: antimicrobial resistance, biofilm formation and clonal diversity. J Med Microbiol. 2014;63(pt 11):1524–1530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Sun E, Liang G, Wang L. et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of hospital acquired Stenotrophomonas maltophilia isolate biofilms. Braz J Infect Dis. 2016;20(4):365–373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Gokhan Gozel M, Celik C, Elaldi N. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections in adults: primary bacteremia and pneumonia. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2015;8(8):e23569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Rodrigues LS, Gioia TSRD, Rossi F. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: resistência emergente ao SMX-TMP em isolados brasileiros. uma realidade? J Brasileiro de Patologia e Med Lab. 2011;47:511–517. [Google Scholar]
- 43. Juhász E, Krizsán G, Lengyel G, Grósz G, Pongrácz J, Kristóf K. Infection and colonization by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: antimicrobial susceptibility and clinical background of strains isolated at a tertiary care centre in Hungary. Ann Clin Microbio Antimicrob. 2014;13:333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Jia W, Wang J, Xu H, Li G. Resistance of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia to fluoroquinolones: prevalence in a university hospital and possible mechanisms. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(5):5177–5195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Rutter WC, Burgess DR, Burgess DS. Increasing incidence of multidrug resistance among cystic fibrosis respiratory bacterial isolates. Microb. Drug Resist. 2017;23(1):51–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Chawla K, Vishwanath S, Gupta A. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in lower respiratory tract infections. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(12):DC20–DC22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Madi H, Lukić J, Vasiljević Z. et al. Genotypic and phenotypic characterization of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strains from a pediatric tertiary care hospital in Serbia. Plos One. 2016;11(10):e0165660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Nayyar C, Thakur P, Tak V, Saigal K. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: an emerging pathogen in paediatric population. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(1):DC08–DC11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Benkő R, Matuz M, Hajdú E. et al. [Antibiotic use in the Hungarian hospitals in the last two decades (1996-2015)]. Orv Hetil. 2016;157(46):1839–1846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Araoka H, Baba M, Okada C, Abe M, Kimura M, Yoneyama A. Evaluation of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole based combination therapy against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: in vitro effects and clinical efficacy in cancer patients. Int J Infect Dis. 2017;58:18–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Aşik G, Çiftçi IH, Aktepe OC, Çetinkaya Z, Altindiş M. In vitro activity of fosfomycin against extended spectrum-β-lactamase (ESBL) producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae strains. Turk J Immunol. 2008;13(1):1–4. [Google Scholar]
- 52. Gajdács M. The continuing threat of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics. 2019;8(2):E52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Codjoe FS, Donkor ES. Carbapenem Resistance: a review. Med Sci (Basel). 2017;6(1):1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]