Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Aug 3;16(8):e0255410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255410

Prevalence and risk factors for antimicrobial resistance among newborns with gram-negative sepsis

Semaria Solomon 1,#, Oluwasefunmi Akeju 2,#, Oludare A Odumade 3, Rozina Ambachew 1, Zenebe Gebreyohannes 1, Kimi Van Wickle 2, Mahlet Abayneh 1, Gesit Metaferia 1, Maria J Carvalho 4,5, Kathryn Thomson 4, Kirsty Sands 4,6, Timothy R Walsh 4,7, Rebecca Milton 4,8, Frederick G B Goddard 2, Delayehu Bekele 1,2, Grace J Chan 1,2,3,*
Editor: Monica Cartelle Gestal9
PMCID: PMC8330902  PMID: 34343185

Abstract

Introduction

Newborn sepsis accounts for more than a third of neonatal deaths globally and one in five neonatal deaths in Ethiopia. The first-line treatment recommended by WHO is the combination of gentamicin with ampicillin or benzylpenicillin. Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) are increasingly resistant to previously effective antibiotics.

Objectives

Our goal was to estimate the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteremia and identify risk factors for antibiotic resistance, among newborns with GNB sepsis.

Methods

At a tertiary hospital in Ethiopia, we enrolled a cohort pregnant women and their newborns, between March and December 2017. Newborns who were followed up until 60 days of life for clinical signs of sepsis. Among the newborns with clinical signs of sepsis, blood samples were cultured; bacterial species were identified and tested for antibiotic susceptibility. We described the prevalence of antibiotic resistance, identified newborn, maternal, and environmental factors associated with multidrug resistance (MDR), and combined resistance to ampicillin and gentamicin (AmpGen), using multivariable regression.

Results

Of the 119 newborns with gram-negative bacteremia, 80 (67%) were born preterm and 82 (70%) had early-onset sepsis. The most prevalent gram-negative species were Klebsiella pneumoniae 94 (79%) followed by Escherichia coli 10 (8%). Ampicillin resistance was found in 113 cases (95%), cefotaxime 104 (87%), gentamicin 101 (85%), AmpGen 101 (85%), piperacillin-tazobactam 47 (39%), amikacin 10 (8.4%), and Imipenem 1 (0.8%). Prevalence of MDR was 88% (n = 105). Low birthweight and late-onset sepsis (LOS) were associated with higher risks of AmpGen-resistant infections. All-cause mortality was higher among newborns treated with ineffective antibiotics.

Conclusion

There was significant resistance to current first-line antibiotics and cephalosporins. Additional data are needed from primary care and community settings. Amikacin and piperacillin-tazobactam had lower rates of resistance; however, context-specific assessments of their potential adverse effects, their local availability, and cost-effectiveness would be necessary before selecting a new first-line regimen to help guide clinical decision-making.

Introduction

More than 2.4 million neonatal deaths occur each year globally, the majority of which occur in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) [1]. About one-third of newborn deaths are caused by systemic infections, also referred to as neonatal sepsis [2, 3]. Ethiopia currently has a high neonatal mortality rate, which in 2018 was estimated at 28 per 1,000 live births and newborn sepsis accounts for about one in five neonatal deaths [4, 5]. Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) are estimated to be responsible for up to two-thirds of neonatal sepsis in Ethiopia [610]. Previous research suggests that the most predominant GNB isolates found among newborns with sepsis are Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli (E. coli) [7, 9]. GNB are becoming increasingly resistant to previously effective antibiotics as new resistance genes can be readily transferred across GNB by mobile genetic elements [11]. An example is the plasmid-mediated inter-genus transfer of the resistance genes for extended spectrum beta-lactamases, which has been observed between Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae likewise among other organisms in the Enterobacteriaceae family [12]. As a result, neonatal sepsis caused by GNB is twice as fatal as neonatal sepsis arising from gram-positive bacteria (GPB) [1316]. The first line antibiotic therapy recommended by World Health Organization (WHO) to treat neonatal sepsis is a combination of intravenous or intramuscular gentamicin and benzylpenicillin or ampicillin, which is also the most common treatment of sepsis in infants under two months old in Ethiopia, [17, 18]. Third-generation cephalosporins, such as cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and ceftazidime, are frequently used alternatives when resistance to first-line antibiotics is suspected [19].

Inappropriate antibiotic treatment for sepsis, due to antimicrobial resistance (AMR), has been linked to increased neonatal mortality and up to 30% of deaths from neonatal sepsis have been attributed to AMR [15, 20]. There have been reports of increasing rates of resistance to first-line and alternative therapies in some sub-Saharan African (sSA) countries [2124]. A study from Ethiopia reported 91% of Klebsiella spp. and 67% of E. coli were resistant to ampicillin, and 82% and 56% resistant to gentamicin, respectively [7]. Furthermore, two studies reported high rates of resistance to third-generation cephalosporins; however, both findings came from observing very few GNB isolates (n = 24, n = 14) [7, 9]. Studies have reported multi-drug resistance (MDR), defined as acquired resistance to at least one agent from three or more categories of antibiotics, to be greater than 70% for GNB [7, 9, 10, 25, 26]. However, there is a paucity of data from Ethiopia on the sensitivity of organisms to carbapenems and other infrequently used antibiotics.

There are known risk factors for antimicrobial resistance. Preterm birth, prolonged rupture of membranes, maternal infections, and prolonged hospitalization are some of the previously identified risk factors for neonatal sepsis [2730]. Frequent antibiotic use, poor sanitation and hygiene, and poor compliance with infection control practices have been associated with an increased incidence of AMR [3133]. Host factors could specifically predispose a newborn to infections by antibiotic-resistant GNB. Several studies have reported an increased risk of neonatal infections by antibiotic-resistant pathogens with intrapartum exposure to ampicillin [3438]. Penicillins are typically the recommended intrapartum antibiotic given to women with group B Streptococci (GBS) colonization to reduce the risk of early neonatal sepsis [39]. Currently, there are limited data on the association between the incidence of antibiotic-resistant neonatal infections and other maternally administered antibiotics during labor. Understanding this relationship may guide the selection of intrapartum antibiotics.

The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of single and multidrug phenotypic resistance to 19 antibiotics, among GNB isolates from newborns with sepsis in Ethiopia. This data along with the subsequent follow-up of newborns from birth through 60 days after birth were used to identify neonatal, maternal, and environmental risk factors for AMR among newborns with gram-negative sepsis. This study provides evidence to inform future decisions and recommendations for treatment of newborn sepsis in Ethiopia and LMIC countries.

Methods

Study design and study population

As part of a multi-country study, Burden of Antibiotic Resistance in Newborns from Developing Societies (BARNARDS), we enrolled a cohort of mothers and their newborns at time of birth and followed them through 60 days of life between March 2017 and December 2017 at St. Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College (SPHMMC), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. We included newborns delivered at SPHMMC (inborn) and those born elsewhere and received care at SPHMMC (outborn). Among the newborns with clinical signs of sepsis, we obtained blood cultures to test for bacterial and fungal growth. In this secondary data analysis of AMR, we included a cohort of newborns with laboratory confirmed gram-negative sepsis. We excluded newborns without laboratory-confirmed sepsis, newborns whose blood cultures did not yield GNB isolates, and newborns who had no results for antibiotic susceptibility testing on their isolates (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Study cohort enrollment.

Fig 1

4828 newborns were enrolled in the cohort. After excluding healthy newborns (no clinical signs of sepsis or negative blood cultures), newborns with blood cultures with contaminates, fungal or GPB isolates, unidentified GNB, 119 newborns were included in the study. GPB: gram-positive bacteria; GNB: gram-negative bacteria.

Ethical approval

Mothers enrolled in the BARNARDS-Ethiopia study provided informed written consent for themselves and their newborns. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethical review committees of St. Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College, Boston Children’s Hospital, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Exposures and outcomes

The primary outcome of interest was the prevalence of resistant phenotypes of GNB isolates to 19 antibiotics, distinct antibiotic combinations, and multiple antibiotics. The nine classes of antibiotics assessed were penicillins (ampicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam); cephalosporins (cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefepime); carbapenems (meropenem, imipenem, and ertapenem); monobactams (aztreonam); aminoglycosides (gentamicin, amikacin, and tobramycin); fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin); tetracyclines (tigecycline); fosfomycin; and polymyxin (colistin). An isolate was considered to be resistant to a class of antibiotics when it was resistant to at least one antimicrobial agent within that class [26]. Based on these nine classes of antibiotics, we created an MDR score that represented the number of antibiotic classes considered in our study that a GNB isolate is resistant to, on a scale of 0–9.

We considered ampicillin and gentamicin, ampicillin and cefotaxime, and piperacillin-tazobactam and amikacin as combinations, based on the high efficacy reported in a previous study [19, 40]. Resistance to an antibiotic combination was assumed when an isolate demonstrated resistance in vitro to each of the antibiotics that constitute the combination. We compared the 28-day and 60-day all-cause mortality rates between newborns who had been treated with antibiotic combinations to which the pathogen was later determined to be resistant and newborns who received antibiotics to which their infection was susceptible.

To assess the association between exposure to intrapartum antibiotics and AMR in neonatal sepsis, we defined the exposure as any antibiotic administered to mothers during labor and delivery. The outcome was the prevalence of single-drug resistance to the intrapartum antibiotic among newborns with gram-negative sepsis.

In the analysis of the AMR risk factors, the exposures were categorized as:

  1. Neonatal characteristics: birth cohort (inborn, outborn); sex (male, female); birthweight as binary (Normal ≥2500g; Low <2500g) and categorical (normal ≥2500g, low 1500g to <2500g, very low <1500g); gestational age as binary (term ≥37 weeks, preterm <37 weeks), and categorical (term ≥37 weeks, moderate to late preterm 32 to <37 weeks, very preterm <32 weeks); and type of delivery (vaginal or caesarean).

  2. Onset of clinical sepsis (early-onset sepsis or EOS <72 hours of life, late-onset sepsis or LOS ≥72 hours to 28 days).

  3. Factors relating to maternal antibiotic usage: prenatal antibiotic use during the last three months of pregnancy (yes, no); intrapartum antibiotic use (yes, no).

  4. Sanitation and hygiene factors: type of toilet in the home (standard flush toilet, squat toilet/pit latrine, communal toilet outside the home/others); and access to running water (less than once/week, irregular or 2-3times/week, ≥4-6times/week).

The outcomes were resistance to both ampicillin and gentamicin (AmpGen) and MDR score (0–9). Fig 2 highlights the conceptual framework showing the associations between exposure and outcome variables.

Fig 2. Conceptual framework.

Fig 2

The conceptual framework describes the associations assessed in this study between exposures variables and the outcome of interest: antimicrobial-resistant infections.

Data collection

Research staff collected standard of care data on maternal and neonatal clinical parameters from clinical records, interviews and direct observation of mothers and newborns. Study data collectors conducted home visits on the 3rd, 7th, and 28th days of life to examine newborns for symptoms of neonatal sepsis and phone visit on day 60 for maternal report of symptoms and vital status outcomes. Neonatal blood samples for cultures were collected, stored, and analyzed according to best practices.

Laboratory analysis

Upon clinical signs of sepsis, a neonatal blood sample was collected and subjected to analysis using an automated blood culture system (BACTEC, BD). Following a positive blood culture indication, an aliquot of blood was transferred to Columbia Blood Agar supplemented with 5% sterile blood and incubated at 37°C overnight. Preliminary identification at SPHMMC was performed using Gram-staining and Enterosystem 18R (for Enterobacterales). All isolates were stored on charcoal swabs and kept at 2–8°C for shipment to the Cardiff University, UK, as part of BARNARDS, and in compliance with UN3373 regulations. Thereafter, species identification and genomic characterization were performed using whole-genome sequencing and agar dilution was carried out to determine minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC), the lowest concentration of an antibiotic that inhibits bacteria’s growth. Phenotypes of isolates were classified according to the breakpoints for MIC, as recommended by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) [41], as part of BARNARDS [42]. An isolate’s phenotype was categorized as "S-Susceptible using standard dosing regimen” when there was a high likelihood of therapeutic success using a standard dosing regimen of the agent; “I-Susceptible with increased exposure” when there was a high likelihood of therapeutic success because exposure to the agent is increased by adjusting the dosing regimen or by its concentration at the site of infection; "R-Resistant" when there is a high likelihood of therapeutic failure even when there is increased exposure [41].

Statistical analysis

We used descriptive statistics to summarize exposure variables. We estimated the prevalence of GNB isolates resistant to each of 19 antibiotics tested and selected antibiotic combinations and the prevalence of MDR. Using a one-sided test of proportion, we assessed whether treating neonatal sepsis with antibiotic combinations that the causative GNB were resistant to, was associated with increased all-cause mortality at 28 and 60 days of life. We used a one-sided test of proportion to examine whether the prevalence of resistant phenotypes to each intrapartum antibiotic used in this study was higher among newborns with a history of maternal exposure to the specific antibiotics.

Since gram-negative bacteria are associated with an increased risk of AMR (Fig 2), we conducted our study within the subgroup of newborns with GNB sepsis when identifying risk factors for AMR sepsis. We used multivariable regression models to identify and adjust for possible sources of potential confounding among exposure variables.

We assessed the relationship between exposure variables and AmpGen using bivariable and multivariable log-binomial regressions. We assessed the association between exposure variables and MDR score using bivariable and multivariable linear regressions. We selected covariates for the multivariable models using the purposeful selection method [43]. We included candidate covariates with p-values <0.25 from the bivariable analysis in a multivariable model and those with a p-value of >0.1 were dropped if their exclusion did not result in >20% change in the effect estimate of other covariates. We added covariates with p-value >0.25 in the bivariable analysis if they had p-values <0.1 in the multivariable model. We excluded covariates with ≥20% observations missing from all analyses. We analyzed all data using STATA 16.1 and set statistical significance at a p-value of <0.05.

Results

Summary characteristics

Between March 2017 and December 2017, as part of BARNARDS-Ethiopia, 4,589 mothers and their 4,828 newborns (inborn = 4,583, outborn = 705) were enrolled and samples were obtained for blood cultures from 1,020 newborns (inborn = 479; outborn = 541) with clinical signs of sepsis. There were 443 newborns (inborn = 183; outborn = 260) with positive blood cultures. Of these, 300 isolates retrieved from samples of 289 newborns revealed the prevalence of GNB sepsis as 50% (n = 150), GPB 47% (n = 141) and fungal infections 3% (n = 9). Of the 11 newborns with more than one pathogen, four had a GNB and an unspecified GPB; one had both GPB and fungus while the additional pair of isolates or species in the remaining were duplicates of the original. Whole-genome sequencing was used to identify 121 GNB species from isolates belonging to 121 newborns. Two newborns were excluded because of insufficient data on AST (Fig 1). Our cohort for the AMR study consisted of 119 newborns, 70 (59%) outborn, and 49 (41%) inborn.

Of the 119 newborns, 53 (45%) were females, 53 (45%) were males, and sex was unreported for 13 (11%) newborns (Table 1). The majority of newborns (n = 80; 67%) were born preterm, of which 77 (96%) of the preterm newborns had low birthweight. Of the term newborns, 15 out of 39 (38%) were low birthweight. Early-onset sepsis (EOS) was identified in 56 out of 80 (70%) preterm and 26 out of 39 (67%) term newborns. For all newborns, the median time to clinical sepsis from delivery was one day (IQR = 0, 4 days). Nearly all (n = 118; 99%) newborns with GNB sepsis were hospitalized and blood samples had been collected from most of them (n = 99; 84%) for suspected sepsis prior to or on the day of hospitalization. The most predominant GNB species identified were Klebsiella pneumoniae (Kp) (n = 94; 79%), followed by Escherichia coli (n = 10; 8%), and Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 6; 5%) (Fig 3). There were 11 sequence types (ST) and capsular-antigen serotypes (KL) of Kp identified, the most predominant being ST35/KL108 (n = 38), ST37/KL15 (n = 28), ST218/KL57 (n = 10) and ST985/KL39 (n = 8), which were responsible for 89% (n = 84/94) of all Kp infections (Fig 4). Incidence of ST35 during the study period was similar for inborn and outborn while the incidence of ST37 was twice among inborn (33%) compared to outborn (17%) and eight of the ten newborns who had ST218 were outborn. Newborns delivered vaginally had higher incidence of ST35 and ST218 while increased incidence of ST37 was observed with Caesarean delivery (Fig 5). New infections by other Kp strains and non-Kp GNB were either sporadic (when rare) or fairly distributed over the entire study period, while ST35, ST37, ST218, and ST985 were more clustered, with at least 70% of cases occurring within two months (Fig 6).

Table 1. Prevalence and risk factors for antimicrobial resistance among 119 newborns with gram-negative sepsis.

Characteristics N = 119 Percentages (%)
Median age at diagnosis in days for all newborns (IQR) 1 (0, 4)
 Median age at diagnosis for newborns with EOS (IQR) 0 (0, 1)
 Median age at diagnosis for newborns with LOS (IQR) 6 (4, 6)
Sex
 Female 53 45
 Male 53 45
 Missing 13 11
Newborn Term
 Term (37-42weeks) 39 33
  Preterm (<37weeks) 80 67
  Moderate/Late Preterm (32-<37 weeks) 62 52
  Very/Extremely Preterm (<32weeks) 18 15
Birthweight
 Normal birthweight (≥2500g) 27 23
 Low birthweight (1500-<2500g) 52 44
 Very low/Extremely low birthweight (<1500g) 40 34
Birth Cohort
 Inborn 49 41
 Outborn 70 59
Type of Delivery
 Vaginal 60 50
 Caesarian Section 34 29
 Missing 25 21
Type of Sepsis
 Early Onset 82 69
 Late Onset 35 29
 Missing 2 2
Antibiotics Administered to Newborns
 Ampicillin & Gentamicin 83 70
 Ampicillin & Cefotaxime 11 9
 Ampicillin & Ceftriaxone 1 1
 Vancomycin & Ceftazidime 5 4
 No antibiotic received 12 10
 Missing 7 6
Intrapartum Antibiotics
 No 72 61
 Yes 25 21
 Missing 22 18
Prenatal Antibiotics
 No 101 85
 Yes 4 3
 Missing 14 12

Fig 3. Prevalence of gram-negative bacterial species.

Fig 3

Among the 119 newborns, the majority of gram-negative isolates identified were Klebsiella spp, followed by Escherichia coli and Acinetobacter baumanni.

Fig 4. Distribution of Klebsiella spp (n = 100) and the clonal strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 94).

Fig 4

Klebsiella pneumoniae accounted for 94 out of the 100 Klebsiella spp identified. There were 11 sequence types (ST) and capsular-antigen serotypes (KL) of Klebsiella pneumoniae identified; ST35/KL108 (n = 38) and ST37/KL15 (n = 28) accounted for 70% (n = 66/94) of all infections attributed to Klebsiella pneumoniae.

Fig 5. Distribution of the clonal strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae by location of birth (inborn or outborn).

Fig 5

The incidence of ST35 was similar for inborn and outborn newborns, however the incidence of ST37 was twice as high among inborn (33%) compared to outborn (17%) newborns. The incidence of ST218 was three times as high among outborn (15%) compared to inborn (5%) newborns.

Fig 6. Seasonal timing of Klebsiella pneumoniae strains.

Fig 6

Infections with Klebsiella pneumoniae strains, ST35, ST37, ST218, and ST985, were reported every month. Most of ST218 cases occurred between August and September; ST35 and ST37 cases occurred between October and December.

Prevalence of AMR

Among the penicillin class of antibiotics, ampicillin-resistance was observed in 113 (95%) isolates while resistance to piperacillin-tazobactam was found in 47 (39%) isolates (Fig 7). For aminoglycosides, resistance was high to gentamicin (n = 101; 85%) but very low to amikacin (n = 1; <1%). There was a high prevalence of resistance to all third and fourth-generation cephalosporins tested. Resistance to ceftriaxone was found in 105 (88%) isolates, cefotaxime 104 (87%), ceftazidime 104 (87%), and cefepime 101 (85%). Resistance to ciprofloxacin, a fluoroquinolone, was observed in 50 (42%) isolates. Nearly all isolates were susceptible to imipenem (n = 118; 99%) and meropenem (n = 118; 99%). All isolates were susceptible to colistin. Most isolates were resistant to AmpGen (n = 101; 85%), the recommended first-line therapy, likewise ampicillin and cefotaxime (n = 104; 87%), another antibiotic combination used for treating sepsis among study participants. Among newborns with EOS, AmpGen-resistance was higher among preterm (91%) than term (65%) newborns, and this finding was similar for MDR (Fig 8). Prevalence of MDR was 88% (n = 105) and the median number of antibiotic classes in which an isolate demonstrated resistance to at least one drug, was 4 (IQR = 4, 5).

Fig 7. Prevalence of gram-negative resistant phenotypes.

Fig 7

Over 80% of the 119 gram negative isolates were resistant to 3rd and 4th generation cephalosporins, monobactams, and penicillins (with the exception of piperacillin-tazobactim), and aminoglycosides (with the exception of amikacin). Less than 10% of isolates were resistant to amikacin, fosfomycin, levofloxacin, tigecycline, colistin, and all the carbapenems.

Fig 8. Prevalence of MDR and AmpGen resistance by timing of sepsis (early versus late onset-sepsis) and gestational age (preterm versus term).

Fig 8

Among newborns with early-onset sepsis, AmpGen resistance was higher in those born preterm (91%) compared to term newborns (65%). AmpGen resistance and MDR were higher among term newborns who had late-onset sepsis. MDR: multidrug resistance; GNB: gram-negative sepsis.

Antimicrobial therapy and treatment outcomes

Of the 119 newborns with blood culture confirmed sepsis, 100 (84%) received antibiotics. Antibiotic data were missing for seven newborns and 12 did not receive antibiotics due to death occurring shortly after admission, parental refusal of antibiotics, and discharge from hospital against medical advice. Ampicillin was administered to 95 out of 100 newborns who received antibiotics (Fig 9). Among the 83 newborns who were administered ampicillin and gentamicin, 72 (87%) had AmpGen-resistant infections. Eight out of the 11 newborns treated with ampicillin and cefotaxime had GNB phenotypes resistant to this antibiotic combination. Of 119 newborns with GNB sepsis, 30 (25%) died by their 28th day of life. At day 60, 72 (61%) were alive, 43 (36%) dead, and 4 (3%) were lost to follow-up (Figs 10 and 11). Compared to AmpGen-susceptible infections, AmpGen-resistant infections were associated with higher 28-day (n = 2/18, 11%; versus n = 28/97, 29%; p = 0.058) and 60-day (n = 4/18, 22%; versus n = 39/97, 40%; p = 0.074) all-cause mortality, although the differences observed were not statistically significant. The prevalence of 28-day and 60-day all-cause mortality was significantly higher among newborns who had received antibiotics to which their GNB infections were resistant (29% and 41%, respectively) compared to those whose treatment matched their infections (0% and 14%, respectively) (p = 0.010, p = 0.028). These findings were consistent among preterm and term newborns, inborn and outborn, newborns with EOS or LOS, regardless of the antibiotic combinations used. 28-day all-cause mortality among newborns who were treated with AmpGen for AmpGen-resistant infections (29%) was similar to that observed among newborns without evidence of receiving antibiotics (31%, p = 0.839). Nearly all the Kp strains (97%) were resistant to AmpGen, but the 60-day all-cause mortality among newborns infected with Kp strains were not much different from the average in this study except for ST218 where eight out of the 10 infected newborns died (Fig 12).

Fig 9. Proportion of newborns with gram-negative infections resistant to the antibiotics received.

Fig 9

87% (n = 72/83) of newborns who received ampicillin and gentamicin were resistant to this combination. 73% (n = 8/11) of newborns who received ampicillin and cefotaxime were resistant to this combination.

Fig 10. Newborn mortality at 28 days among term and preterm newborns by antibiotic choice (rightly matched, wrongly matched, no antibiotics).

Fig 10

There were no deaths at 28 days among newborns who received antibiotics that were effective against their infections. Among newborns who received antibiotics to which their infections were resistant, the mortality rate was 36% (n = 21/58) among preterm newborns and 13% (3/24) among term newborns. *Rightly matched antibiotics represent antibiotic combinations for which the phenotypes of identified gram-negative isolates were susceptible. Wrongly matched antibiotics represent antibiotic combinations for which the phenotypes of identified gram-negative isolates were resistant. No antibiotic refers to no evidence or documentation that any antibiotics were received.

Fig 11. Newborn mortality at 60 days among term and preterm newborns by antibiotic choice (rightly matched, wrongly matched, no antibiotics).

Fig 11

Among newborns who received antibiotics that were effective against their infections, there were two deaths (14%) out of 14 term newborns at 60 days, and 1 death (9%) out of 11 preterm newborns. Mortality at 60 days among term and preterm newborns who received antibiotics to which their infections were resistant was 40% and 37% among those who received no antibiotics. *Rightly matched antibiotics represent antibiotic combinations for which the phenotypes of identified gram-negative isolates were susceptible. Wrongly matched antibiotics represent antibiotic combinations for which the phenotypes of identified gram-negative isolates were resistant. No antibiotic refers to no evidence or documentation that any antibiotics were received. LTFU, lost to follow-up and vital status is unknown.

Fig 12. Newborn mortality at 60 days by gram-negative species and strain.

Fig 12

The ST218 Klebsiella pneumoniae strain was the most virulent strain; 80% of newborns infected with ST218 died. GNB: gram-negative bacteria; MDR: multidrug resistance; MDR Score: number of antibiotic classes where an organism/strain is resistant to at least one antibiotic agent; LTFU: lost to follow-up.

Risk factors for AMR among all newborns

Of the 97 newborns with complete data, 25 (26%) were exposed to intrapartum antibiotics (Ampicillin, n = 11; and Ceftriaxone, n = 14). Intrapartum exposure to ampicillin (n = 11) and ceftriaxone (n = 14) were associated with a higher prevalence of infections with ampicillin-resistant (100% vs. 94%, p = 0.20) and ceftriaxone-resistant (93% vs. 86%, p = 0.24) GNB phenotypes, respectively (Fig 13); however, neither of these associations was statistically significant. The prevalence of prenatal antibiotic use was low (n = 4/119; 3%) in this study hence, its possible relationship with AMR was not assessed.

Fig 13. Intrapartum antibiotics and single-drug resistance.

Fig 13

Ampicillin-resistance was 100% among newborns exposed to intrapartum ampicillin compared to 94% among the unexposed (p = 0.20) while ceftriaxone-resistance was 93% among newborns exposed to intrapartum ceftriaxone compared to 86% among the unexposed (p = 0.24).

Compared to term newborns, preterm newborns had a 27% greater risk of infections with GNB that were resistant to AmpGen, (RR = 1.27; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.56) (Table 2). The risk of AmpGen resistance was 1.15 times (95% CI = 0.96, 1.39) higher among newborns from households whose access to running water was less than one day per week compared to newborns whose households had running water at least four days per week. The outborn did not have a significantly lower risk of AmpGen resistance compared to the inborn (RR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.81, 1.10). The multivariable model for AmpGen resistance consisted of sex, LBW, and LOS. Preterm birth was excluded as it was found to be collinear with birthweight. After adjusting for low birthweight and LOS, the risk of AmpGen-resistant infections was 15% (RR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.76, 0.96) lower among female newborns as compared to male newborns. Low birthweight and LOS were associated with 36% (RR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.83) and 13% (RR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.23) higher risks of AmpGen-resistant infections, respectively.

Table 2. Neonatal, maternal, and environmental factors associated with resistance to both ampicillin and gentamicin among 119 newborns with gram-negative sepsis.

Bivariable Analysis Multivariable Model
Variable Risk Ratio 95% CI p-value Variable Risk Ratio 95% CI p-value
Newborns’ Characteristics
Female (ref: male) 0.91 0.78, 1.08 0.281 Female 0.85 0.76, 0.96 0.010
Preterm (binary)
 <37 weeks (ref: ≥37weeks) 1.27 1.03, 1.56 0.024
Preterm (categorical)
(ref: ≥37weeks)
 Moderate/Late (32-<37 weeks) 1.28 1.04, 1.58 0.021
 Very/Extremely (<32weeks) 1.24 0.96, 1.60 0.102
Low Birthweight (binary)
 <2500g (ref: normal ≥2500g) 1.35 1.03, 1.78 0.031 Low birthweight as binary (<2500g) 1.36 1.02, 1.83 0.039
Birthweight (categorical)
 (ref: normal ≥2500g)
 Low (1500-<2500g) 1.36 1.02, 1.80 0.034
 Very Low/Extremely Low (<1500g) 1.35 1.01, 1.80 0.040
Outborn (ref: inborn) 0.94 0.81, 1.10 0.451
Caesarian delivery (ref: vaginal) 0.97 0.82, 1.14 0.681
Onset of Sepsis
Late-onset sepsis (ref: early-onset sepsis) 1.10 0.96, 1.27 0.175 Late-onset sepsis 1.13 1.03, 1.23 0.007
Maternal Antibiotics
Intrapartum Antibiotic (IPA) Exposure (ref: no IPA) 1.03 0.84, 1.26 0.811
Sanitation and Hygiene
Type of toilet (ref: flush toilet)
 Squat toilet/Pit latrine 0.93 0.70, 1.23 0.613
 Communal/Others 1.04 0.77, 1.39 0.798
Access to Running Water (ref: at least 4 days in a week)
 Irregular or 2–3 days/week 1.03 0.79, 0.83 0.790
 Less than once/week 1.15 0.96, 1.39 0.126

Newborns with LBW were more likely to develop GNB sepsis that are resistant to nearly one additional class of antibiotics, compared to those with normal birthweight (increase in MDR score = 0.95 points; 95% CI = 0.31, 1.59) (Table 3). LOS and birthweight were the only variables included in the multivariable analysis. With birthweight held constant, the MDR score for newborns who developed LOS was higher by 0.59 points (95% CI = 0.02,1.16) compared to newborns with EOS.

Table 3. Neonatal, maternal, and environmental factors associated with multidrug resistance (MDR score of 0–9) among 119 newborns with gram-negative sepsis.

Bivariable Analysis Multivariable Model
Variable β 95% CI p-value Variable β 95% CI p-value
Newborns’ Characteristics
Female (ref: male) -0.04 -0.58, 0.51 0.892
Preterm (binary)
 <37 weeks (ref: ≥37 weeks) 0.53 -0.06, 1.11 0.076
Preterm (categorical)
 (ref: ≥37 weeks)
 Moderate/Late (32-<37 weeks) 0.67 0.06, 1.28 0.032
 Very/Extremely (<32weeks) 0.05 -0.80, 0.89 0.913
Low Birthweight (binary) Low birthweight as binary (<2500g) 0.81 0.17, 1.45 0.013
 <2500g (ref: normal ≥2500g) 0.95 0.31, 1.59 0.004
Birthweight (categorical)
 (ref: normal ≥2500g)
 Low (1500-<2500g) 0.96 0.26, 1.66 0.007
 Very/Extremely Low (<1500g) 0.93 0.20, 1.66 0.013
 Outborn (ref: inborn) -0.23 -0.79, 0.33 0.419
Caesarian delivery (ref: vaginal) -0.16 -0.63, 0.30 0.486
Onset of Sepsis
Late-onset sepsis (ref: early-onset) 0.60 0.02, 1.19 0.043 Late-onset sepsis 0.59 0.02, 1.16 0.044
Maternal Antibiotics
Intrapartum Antibiotic (IPA) Exposure (ref: no IPA) 0.10 -0.66, 0.86 0.796
Sanitation and Hygiene
Type of toilet (ref: flush toilet)
 Squat toilet/Pit latrine -0.02 -1.18, 1.14 0.968
 Communal/Others 0.16 -1.13, 1.45 0.807
Access to Running Water (ref: at least 4 days/week)
 Irregular or 2–3 days/week 0.25 -0.46, 0.96 0.486
 Less than once/week 0.21 -0.55, 0.98 0.583

In the multivariable analysis, low birthweight was associated with increased MDR score by 0.81 points while in late-onset sepsis, the MDR score was higher by 0.59 points.

Discussion

The majority of GNB infections among newborns enrolled in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia were resistant to the first-line antibiotics, ampicillin, and gentamicin, consistent with previous results of combined BARNARDS countries [42] (Sands et al., in press; Thomson et al., in press). This study assessed the extent of AMR against a wide range of antibiotics and identified potential alternatives with sensitive antimicrobial activity against GNB sepsis among newborns. In addition to seeking to improve the health outcomes of newborns diagnosed with GNB sepsis, the high prevalence of MDR in this study demonstrates the importance of addressing the growing threat of AMR in developing countries.

The high rates (>80%) of MDR to ampicillin, gentamicin, and the third-generation cephalosporins, the routine antibiotics for sepsis at health facilities, are concerning and consistent with recent findings in Ethiopia and across sub-Saharan Africa (sSA) [7, 24]. Resistance to amikacin and carbapenems was low (<1%) in this study. This is in line with findings from a meta-analysis which estimated the resistance of Klebsiella spp, the most predominant GNB, to amikacin and carbapenems to be 5% and 0% in East Africa, with 14% and 4% as the average for sSA, respectively [24]; however, the prevalence of resistance to amikacin and carbapenems were much higher in other regions. The resistance of GNB isolates to amikacin in North Africa and the Middle East was up to 88% while their prevalence of carbapenem-resistant GNB was as high as 94% [32, 44, 45]. These suggest regional differences in the distribution patterns of AMR. To the best of our knowledge, there was no prior study published from Ethiopia on the prevalence of piperacillin-tazobactam resistance among GNB isolates, which was 39% in this study. A pooled analysis from sSA reported a similar prevalence of piperacillin-tazobactam resistance among Klebsiella spp., at 37% [24]. The high rate of resistance to routinely used drugs, which were once effective could serve as an indication that resistance to antibiotics currently found to be efficacious against GNB may rapidly increase within a population if they become first-line therapy [21, 33]. This is further supported by the moderate rate of resistance to ciprofloxacin, an antibiotic, not usually used in children but frequently prescribed for treating infections among older individuals in Ethiopia [46]. This highlights the urgency for more judicious use of antibiotics across all age groups within a population.

The WHO recommends empirical treatment with antibiotics, based on clinical signs when neonatal sepsis is suspected, before laboratory confirmation of diagnosis [17] because of the rapid rate of disease progression and the limited access to laboratory evaluations in sSA countries that have the highest burden of neonatal sepsis [19]. The ideal empirical antibiotic would be inexpensive and would cover common GPB and GNB without increasing AMR [19]. As current evidence suggests the need for new treatment guidelines on antibiotics for neonatal sepsis, it may be necessary to consider regional differences in antibiotic sensitivity before choosing new empirical antibiotics; however, globalization may aid the transmission of antibiotic-resistant strains of GNB to areas where an antibiotic had not been introduced [47, 48]. Based on its high efficacy against GNB in this study and others, amikacin could be a potential drug to consider in Ethiopia and across sSA. Amikacin has also proven to be much more effective than gentamicin when used for treating neonatal sepsis in other countries, although they both share similar limitations of administration via intravenous route and the potential to harm the kidneys [19, 49]. Another alternative is piperacillin-tazobactam, which has a fair coverage of GNB, in Ethiopia and sSA, and has been associated with better treatment outcomes in practice than ampicillin or gentamicin [24, 50]. Despite demonstrating a good coverage of GNB sepsis in this study, the increasing global resistance and cost of carbapenems would prevent them from being recommended for widespread use; however, they may be feasible options for use as second-line therapy [51]. Tigecycline, fosfomycin, and levofloxacin also demonstrated high efficacy against GNB in this study and have been used as salvage therapies for extensively drug-resistant infections in newborns; however, levofloxacin [52] is not recommended for routine use because of its potential adverse effect on the musculoskeletal system of children while data on the safety, tolerability, and dosing of tigecycline [53] and fosfomycin [54] in newborns are limited. Additional research is needed on the safety, pharmacokinetics, and cost-effectiveness of prospective sensitive antibiotics among newborns, especially those born preterm [55, 56]. In settings without microbiology capacity, treating newborns with clinical symptoms of sepsis with “big gun” antibiotics may do more harm than good by increasing antibiotic resistance or adverse side effects. Furthermore, the mortality outcome of these sensitive antibiotics should be taken from the experience of other countries utilizing amikacin or piperacillin-tazobactam as a first-line regimen.

Preterm birth and low birthweight (LBW) are well-known risk factors for neonatal sepsis. Hence, the likely explanation for the majority of newborns in our study being LBW, and most of the newborns with LBW in our study were born preterm. Preterm birth and LBW were also found to be significant risk factors for AmpGen resistance and MDR, especially among newborns with early-onset sepsis (EOS). Evidence supporting the increased risk of antibiotic-resistant infections with preterm birth was found in two studies [16, 32]. The less developed immune system among preterm newborns, generally thought to be one of the underlying reasons for increased sepsis among preterm newborns, does not directly explain the higher risk for antibiotic-resistant infections [29]. The majority of preterm newborns in this study had EOS which may be associated with maternal intrapartum transmission of pathogens that colonize the mothers’ gastrointestinal or reproductive tract [28, 30]. Further research would be needed to understand whether this increased risk of AMR is due to unexplained host factors among preterm newborns that select for resistant pathogens, or whether the mothers of preterm newborns and newborns with LBW are more likely to have a higher prevalence of colonization by antibiotic-resistant strains of GNB.

Late-onset sepsis (LOS) was associated with an increased risk of MDR in this study and the risk was not particularly higher among babies with LBW. This suggests that antibiotic-resistant GNB are likely to be more prevalent within the primary sources of LOS in Ethiopia. Unlike EOS, sources of infection in LOS have been attributed to be more from horizontal contamination post-delivery than vertical transmission from the mother during labor [27]. GNB infections in LOS can be community-acquired or hospital-acquired, especially when newborns are admitted in neonatal intensive care units [27]. Prevalence of antibiotic resistance is high among hospital-acquired GNB infections and with poor infection control practices [57]. Unsanitary conditions in the environment have also been reported as risk factors for AMR [58]. In this study, the risk of MDR was increased with unsanitary conditions such as lack of access to running water within households but the association did not reach statistical significance, possibly due to the limited sample size. Future research to understand the distribution of community and hospital-acquired LOS in Ethiopia and identify predominant sources of infections in these settings would help to guide the distribution of resources for interventions towards reducing both LOS and the associated AMR.

The clustered occurrence of some Klebsiella pneumoniae (Kp) strains suggests possible outbreaks and may provide clues about infection sources in this study. Strains ST35 and ST37, which were responsible for more than half of all GNB sepsis in this study, have been associated with MDR and reported to be sources of outbreaks within NICU settings outside sSA [5961]. Both ST35 and ST37 have also been detected in the feces of healthy adults and animals in the community [62]. The incidence of ST37 was much higher among newborns that were inborn, delivered via Caesarean section and had LOS, strongly suggesting that majority of ST37 infections were hospital-acquired. Community outbreak and vertical transmission seemed more plausible for ST218 cases, which occurred within a month and mostly among newborns that were outborn, delivered vaginally, and had EOS. With the extreme case fatality rate of 80% observed with ST218 cases, all having the KL57 serotype, it is more likely that the newborns in this study were infected with the hypervirulent type of ST218/KL57, which has been reported among patients at a tertiary hospital about 350km from Addis Ababa in Jimma, Ethiopia, likewise other countries [63, 64]. While there was no difference in the incidence of ST35 between inborn and outborn, the higher incidence of ST35 and ST218 among newborns delivered vaginally may necessitate the screening of pregnant women for colonization by these strains when community outbreaks are suspected. Except for ST37, ST711, and ST985, eight of the 11 Kp strains identified in this study were also found among the Jimma patients, suggesting that some of these strains may be endemic to the region. The BARNARDS study in Ethiopia was limited to a single site; hence, no further comparison could be made with the incidence of Kp strains in the community or other NICU settings closer to Addis Ababa. There is a need for surveillance on the Kp strains responsible for the most neonatal infections and mortality within hospitals and community settings across Ethiopia and sSA. It is imperative to reinforce infection control practices in Ethiopian NICU settings to prevent the spread of deadly Kp strains especially because of the limited facilities for early detection.

Intrapartum exposure to ampicillin had been linked with ampicillin-resistant type of neonatal sepsis and this was consistent with findings in our study, not only for ampicillin but also for ceftriaxone, the more frequently used intrapartum antibiotic in this study [35]. There was an increased prevalence of ceftriaxone-resistant GNB isolates with intrapartum exposure to ceftriaxone; however, the higher prevalence of ampicillin and ceftriaxone-resistant GNB sepsis did not reach statistical significance, most likely because of the fewer number of individuals exposed to the antibiotics in this study. Exposure to intrapartum antibiotics was not found to be a significant risk factor for drug resistance to other antibiotics not used as intrapartum antibiotics in this study, consistent with prior studies [37]. Considering that one in four newborns with GNB sepsis was exposed to intrapartum antibiotics, it may be necessary to assess whether the supposed benefit of recommending intrapartum antibiotics outweighs the burden from increased antibiotic-resistant GNB infections among newborns and the rationale for intrapartum antibiotics especially in settings where the there is no evidence for Group B streptococcus early-onset sepsis [39].

A limitation of this study is that we were not able to characterize all GNB isolates during the study due to loss of viability, hence the numbers of GNB total did not match the total WGS. In addition, antimicrobial sensitivity testing was conducted separately for constituents of antibiotic combinations; however, a synergistic effect is unlikely in vivo when resistance has been demonstrated to the individual components of a combined therapy in vitro [65]. For instance, the high mortality rates observed among newborns treated with AmpGen for AmpGen-resistant GNB sepsis (independent resistance to ampicillin and gentamicin in vitro) were similar to those among newborns who received no antibiotics for their GNB infections in this study. Evidence from this study confirmed that newborns are more likely to survive GNB infections if treated with the appropriate antibiotics. The high case-fatality among newborns with GNB sepsis may be related to ineffective first-line antibiotics.

Conclusion

The current study revealed a high prevalence of resistance to first-line therapy for neonatal sepsis among GNB isolates in Ethiopia. We found lower resistance to amikacin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and carbapenems. There is a need to reassess the current first-line treatment options with antibiotics that have shown sensitivity against GNB, after they have been evaluated for safety, feasibility, and availability. Stronger microbiology laboratory capacity to diagnose AMR is required in countries with high burden of neonatal sepsis and high case fatality to make clinical and policy decisions. Preterm birth, LBW, and LOS were identified as risk factors for MDR, and these could provide directions for possible interventions directed towards mitigating AMR in neonatal infections. Improving infection control practices, antimicrobial stewardship regarding intrapartum antibiotics and exploring recent alternative therapeutic options to antimicrobials may reduce the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant GNB sepsis among newborns.

Acknowledgments

We thank the mothers and newborns who participated in BARNARDS-Ethiopia study. We acknowledge the BARNARDS-Ethiopia team Redeat Workneh, Tefere Biteye, Yahya Mohammed, supervisors, and data collectors. We appreciate our colleagues at St. Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College, Boston Children’s Hospital, and Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health for their unreserved support during the undertaking of this work, especially Drs. Wendemagen Gezahegn and Balkachew Nigatu. We would like to acknowledge the clinicians and researchers that provided advice and guidance during BARNARDS and the BARNARDS network (https://barnards-group.com). The laboratory work has been coordinated and completed with Cardiff University and we would like to acknowledge Ana Ferreira, Edward Portal, Calie Dyer, and Jordan Mathias. We thank Madeline Van Husen for her assistance in formatting the tables, figures, and manuscript.

Data Availability

Sequencing data from our work have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under the project number PRJEB33565. All other relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ OPP1119772 (TRW GJC). GJC and OAO received funding from the Boston Children’s Global Health Program https://www.childrenshospital.org/globalhealth. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Newborns: reducing mortality [Internet] [updated 19 September 2020; cited 2021 February 2]. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/newborns-reducing-mortality.
  • 2.Garces AL, McClure EM, Pérez W, Hambidge KM, Krebs NF, Figueroa L, et al. The Global Network Neonatal Cause of Death algorithm for low‐resource settings. Acta Paediatrica. 2017;106(6):904–11. doi: 10.1111/apa.13805 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fottrell E, Osrin D, Alcock G, Azad K, Bapat U, Beard J, et al. Cause-specific neonatal mortality: analysis of 3772 neonatal deaths in Nepal, Bangladesh, Malawi and India. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2015;100(5):F439–F47. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-307636 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Neonatal mortality data [Internet] [updated September 2020; cited 2021 Feburary 2]. https://data.unicef.org/resources/dataset/neonatal-mortality-data/.
  • 5.Ethiopia- UNICEF Data [Internet] [cited 2021 February 2]. https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/country_profiles/Ethiopia/country%20profile_ETH.pdf.
  • 6.Moges F, Eshetie S, Yeshitela B, Abate E. Bacterial etiologic agents causing neonatal sepsis and associated risk factors in Gondar, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC pediatrics. 2017;17(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12887-016-0759-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sorsa A, Früh J, Stötter L, Abdissa S. Blood culture result profile and antimicrobial resistance pattern: a report from neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), Asella teaching and referral hospital, Asella, south East Ethiopia. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control. 2019;8(1):1–6. doi: 10.1186/s13756-019-0486-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sorsa A. Epidemiology of neonatal sepsis and associated factors implicated: observational study at neonatal intensive care unit of Arsi University Teaching and Referral Hospital, South East Ethiopia. Ethiopian journal of health sciences. 2019;29(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Negussie A, Mulugeta G, Bedru A, Ali I, Shimeles D, Lema T, et al. Bacteriological profile and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of blood culture isolates among septicemia suspected children in selected hospitals Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. International journal of biological and medical research. 2015;6(1):4709. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dagnew M, Yismaw G, Gizachew M, Gadisa A, Abebe T, Tadesse T, et al. Bacterial profile and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern in septicemia suspected patients attending Gondar University Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC research notes. 2013;6(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Exner M, Bhattacharya S, Christiansen B, Gebel J, Goroncy-Bermes P, Hartemann P, et al. Antibiotic resistance: What is so special about multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria? GMS hygiene and infection control. 2017;12. doi: 10.3205/dgkh000290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vaidya VK. Horizontal transfer of antimicrobial resistance by extended-spectrum β lactamase-producing enterobacteriaceae. Journal of laboratory physicians. 2011;3(1):37. doi: 10.4103/0974-2727.78563 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Liang LD, Kotadia N, English L, Kissoon N, Ansermino JM, Kabakyenga J, et al. Predictors of mortality in neonates and infants hospitalized with sepsis or serious infections in developing countries: a systematic review. Frontiers in pediatrics. 2018;6:277. doi: 10.3389/fped.2018.00277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dramowski A, Madide A, Bekker A. Neonatal nosocomial bloodstream infections at a referral hospital in a middle-income country: burden, pathogens, antimicrobial resistance and mortality. Paediatrics and international child health. 2015;35(3):265–72. doi: 10.1179/2046905515Y.0000000029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Blomberg B, Manji KP, Urassa WK, Tamim BS, Mwakagile DS, Jureen R, et al. Antimicrobial resistance predicts death in Tanzanian children with bloodstream infections: a prospective cohort study. BMC infectious diseases. 2007;7(1):1–14. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-7-43 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hyde TB, Hilger TM, Reingold A, Farley MM, O’Brien KL, Schuchat A. Trends in incidence and antimicrobial resistance of early-onset sepsis: population-based surveillance in San Francisco and Atlanta. Pediatrics. 2002;110(4):690–5. doi: 10.1542/peds.110.4.690 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.WHO. Pocket book of hospital care for children: guidelines for the management of common childhood illnesses: World Health Organization; 2013. [PubMed]
  • 18.Woldu MA, Guta MB, Lenjisa JL, Tegegne GT, Tesafye G, Dinsa H. Assessment of the incidence of neonatal sepsis, its risk factors, antimicrobials use and clinical outcomes in Bishoftu General Hospital, neonatal intensive care unit, Debrezeit-Ethiopia. Int J Contemp Pediatrics. 2017;1(3):135–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fuchs A, Bielicki J, Mathur S, Sharland M, Van Den Anker J. Antibiotic use for sepsis in neonates and children: 2016 evidence update. WHO Reviews. 2016.
  • 20.Laxminarayan R, Matsoso P, Pant S, Brower C, Røttingen J-A, Klugman K, et al. Access to effective antimicrobials: a worldwide challenge. The Lancet. 2016;387(10014):168–75. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00474-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Enweronu-Laryea C, Newman M. Changing pattern of bacterial isolates and antimicrobial susceptbility in neonatal infections in Korle Bu Teaching Hospital, Ghana. East African medical journal. 2007;84(3):136–40. doi: 10.4314/eamj.v84i3.9516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kabwe M, Tembo J, Chilukutu L, Chilufya M, Ngulube F, Lukwesa C, et al. Etiology, antibiotic resistance and risk factors for neonatal sepsis in a large referral center in Zambia. The Pediatric infectious disease journal. 2016;35(7):e191–e8. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000001154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Crichton H, O’Connell N, Rabie H, Whitelaw A, Dramowski A. Neonatal and paediatric bloodstream infections: Pathogens, antimicrobial resistance patterns and prescribing practice at Khayelitsha District Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa. South African Medical Journal. 2018;108(2):99–104. doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2017.v108i2.12601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Okomo U, Akpalu EN, Le Doare K, Roca A, Cousens S, Jarde A, et al. Aetiology of invasive bacterial infection and antimicrobial resistance in neonates in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis in line with the STROBE-NI reporting guidelines. The Lancet Infectious diseases. 2019;19(11):1219–34. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30414-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yismaw G, Abay S, Asrat D, Yifru S, Kassu A. Bacteriological profile and resistant pattern of clinical isolates from pediatric patients, Gondar University Teaching Hospital, Gondar, Northwest Ethiopia. Ethiopian medical journal. 2010;48(4):293–300. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Magiorakos A-P, Srinivasan A, Carey Rt, Carmeli Y, Falagas Mt, Giske Ct, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clinical microbiology and infection. 2012;18(3):268–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03570.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Camacho-Gonzalez A, Spearman PW, Stoll BJ. Neonatal infectious diseases: evaluation of neonatal sepsis. Pediatric Clinics of North America. 2013;60(2):367. doi: 10.1016/j.pcl.2012.12.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chan GJ, Lee AC, Baqui AH, Tan J, Black RE. Risk of early-onset neonatal infection with maternal infection or colonization: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10(8):e1001502. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001502 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Collins A, Weitkamp J-H, Wynn JL. Why are preterm newborns at increased risk of infection? Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2018;103(4):F391–F4. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-313595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Simonsen KA, Anderson-Berry AL, Delair SF, Davies HD. Early-onset neonatal sepsis. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2014;27(1):21–47. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00031-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Burroughs T, Najafi M, Lemon SM, Knobler SL. The resistance phenomenon in microbes and infectious disease vectors: implications for human health and strategies for containment: workshop summary. 2003. [PubMed]
  • 32.Lipsitch M, Samore MH. Antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance: a population perspective. Emerging infectious diseases. 2002;8(4):347. doi: 10.3201/eid0804.010312 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yusef D, Shalakhti T, Awad S, Algharaibeh Ha, Khasawneh W. Clinical characteristics and epidemiology of sepsis in the neonatal intensive care unit in the era of multi-drug resistant organisms: a retrospective review. Pediatrics & Neonatology. 2018;59(1):35–41. doi: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2017.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ashkenazi-Hoffnung L, Melamed N, Ben-Haroush A, Livni G, Amir J, Bilavsky E. The association of intrapartum antibiotic exposure with the incidence and antibiotic resistance of infantile late-onset serious bacterial infections. Clinical pediatrics. 2011;50(9):827–33. doi: 10.1177/0009922811406260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bromiker R, Ernest N, Meir MB, Kaplan M, Hammerman C, Schimmel MS, et al. Correlation of bacterial type and antibiotic sensitivity with maternal antibiotic exposure in early-onset neonatal sepsis. Neonatology. 2013;103(1):48–53. doi: 10.1159/000342215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Glasgow TS, Young PC, Wallin J, Kwok C, Stoddard G, Firth S, et al. Association of intrapartum antibiotic exposure and late-onset serious bacterial infections in infants. Pediatrics. 2005;116(3):696–702. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-2421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mercer BM, Carr TL, Beazley DD, Crouse DT, Sibai BM. Antibiotic use in pregnancy and drug-resistant infant sepsis. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 1999;181(4):816–21. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70307-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Schrag SJ, Hadler JL, Arnold KE, Martell-Cleary P, Reingold A, Schuchat A. Risk factors for invasive, early-onset Escherichia coli infections in the era of widespread intrapartum antibiotic use. Pediatrics. 2006;118(2):570–6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-3083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.WHO. World Health Organization recommendation on intrapartum antibiotic administration to women with group B Streptococcus (GBS) colonization for prevention of early neonatal GBS infection. WHO Reprod Heal Libr. 2015.
  • 40.Flidel-Rimon O, Friedman S, Leibovitz E, Shinwell ES. The use of piperacillin/tazobactam (in association with amikacin) in neonatal sepsis: efficacy and safety data. Scandinavian journal of infectious diseases. 2006;38(1):36–42. doi: 10.1080/00365540500372879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters, version 10.0, 2020 [cited 2021 February 2].
  • 42.Sands K, Carvalho MJ, Portal E, Thomson K, Dyer C, Akpulu C, et al. Characterization of antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative bacteria that cause neonatal sepsis in seven low-and middle-income countries. Nature microbiology. 2021;6(4):512–23. doi: 10.1038/s41564-021-00870-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source code for biology and medicine. 2008;3(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-3-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Almohammady MN, Eltahlawy EM, Reda NM. Pattern of bacterial profile and antibiotic susceptibility among neonatal sepsis cases at Cairo University Children Hospital. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences. 2020;15(1):39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2019.12.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mohsen L, Ramy N, Saied D, Akmal D, Salama N, Haleim MMA, et al. Emerging antimicrobial resistance in early and late-onset neonatal sepsis. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control. 2017;6(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13756-017-0225-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Worku F, Tewahido D. Retrospective assessment of antibiotics prescribing at public primary healthcare facilities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Interdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases. 2018;2018. doi: 10.1155/2018/4323769 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Munita JM, Arias CA. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Virulence mechanisms of bacterial pathogens. 2016:481–511. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.VMBF-0016-2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Senok AC, Botta GA, Soge OO. Emergence and spread of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens in an era of globalization. Hindawi; 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 49.WHO. Second meeting of the subcommittee of the expert committee on the selection and use of essential medicines. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2018.
  • 50.Chong E, Reynolds J, Shaw J, Forur L, Delmore P, Uner H, et al. Results of a two-center, before and after study of piperacillin–tazobactam versus ampicillin and gentamicin as empiric therapy for suspected sepsis at birth in neonates⩽ 1500 g. Journal of Perinatology. 2013;33(7):529–32. doi: 10.1038/jp.2012.169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Meletis G. Carbapenem resistance: overview of the problem and future perspectives. Therapeutic advances in infectious disease. 2016;3(1):15–21. doi: 10.1177/2049936115621709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Goldman JA, Kearns G. Fluoroquinolone use in paediatrics: focus on safety and place in therapy. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 2011:1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.İpek MS, Gunel ME, Ozbek E. Tigecycline Use in Neonates: 5-Year Experience of a Tertiary Center. Journal of Pediatric Infectious Diseases. 2019;14(03):103–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Williams PC. Potential of fosfomycin in treating multidrug‐resistant infections in children. Journal of paediatrics and child health. 2020;56(6):864–72. doi: 10.1111/jpc.14883 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Raymond B. Five rules for resistance management in the antibiotic apocalypse, a road map for integrated microbial management. Evolutionary applications. 2019;12(6):1079–91. doi: 10.1111/eva.12808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Pokhrel B, Koirala T, Shah G, Joshi S, Baral P. Bacteriological profile and antibiotic susceptibility of neonatal sepsis in neonatal intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital in Nepal. BMC pediatrics. 2018;18(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12887-017-0974-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Peters L, Olson L, Khu DT, Linnros S, Le NK, Hanberger H, et al. Multiple antibiotic resistance as a risk factor for mortality and prolonged hospital stay: A cohort study among neonatal intensive care patients with hospital-acquired infections caused by gram-negative bacteria in Vietnam. PloS one. 2019;14(5):e0215666. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Fletcher S. Understanding the contribution of environmental factors in the spread of antimicrobial resistance. Environmental health and preventive medicine. 2015;20(4):243–52. doi: 10.1007/s12199-015-0468-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Frenk S, Rakovitsky N, Temkin E, Schechner V, Cohen R, Kloyzner BS, et al. Investigation of Outbreaks of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Klebsiella Pneumoniae in Three Neonatal Intensive Care Units Using Whole Genome Sequencing. Antibiotics. 2020;9(10):705. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9100705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Yan J, Wang M, Zheng P, Tsai L, Wu J. Associations of the major international high-risk resistant clones and virulent clones with specific ompK36 allele groups in Klebsiella pneumoniae in Taiwan. New microbes and new infections. 2015;5:1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2015.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Chen D, Hu X, Chen F, Li H, Wang D, Li X, et al. Co-outbreak of ST37 and a novel ST3006 Klebsiella pneumoniae from multi-site infection in a neonatal intensive care unit: a retrospective study. bioRxiv. 2018:334169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Zhong X-s, Li Y-z, Ge J, Xiao G, Mo Y, Wen Y-q, et al. Comparisons of microbiological characteristics and antibiotic resistance of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from urban rodents, shrews, and healthy people. BMC microbiology. 2020;20(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12866-019-1672-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Sewunet T, Asrat D, Woldeamanuel Y, Ny S, Westerlund F, Aseffa A, et al. High prevalence of bla CTX-M-15 and nosocomial transmission of hypervirulent epidemic clones of Klebsiella pneumoniae at a tertiary hospital in Ethiopia. JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance. 2021;3(1):dlab001. doi: 10.1093/jacamr/dlab001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Liu C, Du P, Xiao N, Ji F, Russo TA, Guo J. Hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae is emerging as an increasingly prevalent K. pneumoniae pathotype responsible for nosocomial and healthcare-associated infections in Beijing, China. Virulence. 2020;11(1):1215–24. doi: 10.1080/21505594.2020.1809322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mahajan G, Thomas B, Parab R, Patel ZE, Kuldharan S, Yemparala V, et al. In vitro and in vivo activities of antibiotic PM181104. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 2013;57(11):5315–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01059-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Monica Cartelle Gestal

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

16 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-07720

Prevalence and risk factors for antimicrobial resistance among newborns with gram-negative sepsis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the concerns that the reviewers highlighted and submit the manuscript as early as your convenience

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 31 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Monica Cartelle Gestal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A well designed study.

How frequently does the study hospital change its antibiotic policy?

The effective sample size was 119. Total number of newborn enrolled i.e. 4828 was not used for analysis. Therefore, it may not be included in abstract.

Reviewer #2: Please see the attached document with my comments, suggestions, and questions. Please consider these and answer the questions as best you can.

A note about the figures and tables:

The authors are encouraged to make a list all figures at the end of the document. Moreover, include figure captions, or legends, that are complete so that the reader is able to understand the figure without reference to the text. Describe only what is seen on the image. Use of arrows, asterisks, arrowheads, etc. are useful to communicate or covey to the readers your findings. The authors are advised to revise the captions all figures.

The authors are encouraged to make a list all tables at the end of the document. The headings or titles of the tables should be complete so that the reader is able to understand the table without reference to the text. The authors are advised to revise the titles of all tables. For example: “Table 1.Prevalence and risk factors for antimicrobial resistance among newborns with Gram-negative sepsis: Descriptive analysis for baseline characteristics of 119 newborns Included in Antimicrobial Resistance Study”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Manas Pratim Roy

Reviewer #2: Yes: Uriel Blas-Machado

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: BARNARDS AMR Manuscript 28Feb_with Reviewer comments and edits.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Aug 3;16(8):e0255410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255410.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Jun 2021

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this manuscript. Your comments are highly constructive and appreciated.

Reviewer #1

1. How frequently does the study hospital change its antibiotic policy?

Response: Thank you, changes to antibiotic policy in the study hospital are made based on recommendations and policy changes from Ministry of Health and does not occur regularly, the last change to antibiotic policy occurred in 2014.

2. The effective sample size was 119. Total number of newborn enrolled i.e. 4828 was not used for analysis. Therefore, it may not be included in abstract.

Response: Thank you, this was removed in the abstract.

Reviewer #2

1. Please see the attached document with my comments, suggestions, and questions. Please consider these and answer the questions as best you can

Response: Thank you for comments and suggestions. We have addressed them as best we can. Following recommendations from CDC website and Cochrane, "Gram should be capitalized and never hyphenated when used as Gram stain; gram negative and gram positive should be lowercase and only hyphenated when used as a unit modifier", we did not capitalize the “g” in gram-negative but accepted all other suggested edits.

2. A note about the figures and tables:

The authors are encouraged to make a list all figures at the end of the document. Moreover, include figure captions, or legends, that are complete so that the reader is able to understand the figure without reference to the text. Describe only what is seen on the image. Use of arrows, asterisks, arrowheads, etc. are useful to communicate or covey to the readers your findings. The authors are advised to revise the captions all figures.

Response: The figure legends and captions have now been revised as advised. The figures are cited in the text in order per the PLOSone formatting instructions and uploaded as sperate individual figure files. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf, we have added a list of all figures to the end of the document as suggested. We understand colors are typically part of the legend, however we kept the legends defining the colors used in the figure in the figures in case this is easier to format in the publication. Please let us know if you’d prefer that we move these into the manuscript.

The authors are encouraged to make a list all tables at the end of the document. The headings or titles of the tables should be complete so that the reader is able to understand the table without reference to the text. The authors are advised to revise the titles of all tables. For example: “Table 1.Prevalence and risk factors for antimicrobial resistance among newborns with Gram-negative sepsis: Descriptive analysis for baseline characteristics of 119 newborns Included in Antimicrobial Resistance Study”

Response: The table titles and legends have now been revised as advised. We have added a list of tables to the end of the document as per the reviewer’s comment.

3. Why 6 drops and not 5 or 7? What is the reasoning? Please explain.

During protocol development 6 drops was agreed as a guide to allow sufficient volume of blood to adhere to the agar and encourage microbial growth. It might be best to use ‘aliquot’ rather than being too detailed, hence the wording has been changed accordingly.

Thank you your time and helpful comments to strengthen the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 31May2021.docx

Decision Letter 1

Monica Cartelle Gestal

16 Jul 2021

Prevalence and risk factors for antimicrobial resistance among newborns with gram-negative sepsis

PONE-D-21-07720R1

Dear Dr. Chan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Monica Cartelle Gestal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Changes are satisfactory. However, if the hospital has not changed its policy on antibiotic use after 2014, what would be the practical implication of such a study?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Manas Pratim Roy

Reviewer #2: Yes: Uriel Blas-Machado

Acceptance letter

Monica Cartelle Gestal

23 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-07720R1

Prevalence and risk factors for antimicrobial resistance among newborns with gram-negative sepsis

Dear Dr. Chan:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Monica Cartelle Gestal

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: BARNARDS AMR Manuscript 28Feb_with Reviewer comments and edits.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 31May2021.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Sequencing data from our work have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under the project number PRJEB33565. All other relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES