Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Oct 1;16(10):e0258117. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258117

High prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae fecal carriage among children under five years in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Mekdes Alemu Tola 1,*, Negga Asamene Abera 2, Yonas Mekonnen Gebeyehu 2, Surafel Fentaw Dinku 2, Kassu Desta Tullu 3
Editor: Abdelazeem Mohamed Algammal4
PMCID: PMC8486131  PMID: 34597328

Abstract

Background

Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing bacteria present an ever-growing burden in the hospital and community settings. Data on the prevalence of ESBL fecal carriage remain scarce in Ethiopia. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of ESBL producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae fecal carriage among children under five years in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Methods

A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted from April to May 2017. A total of 269 fecal/rectal swab samples were cultured on MacConkey agar. All positive cultures were characterized by colony morphology, Gram stain, and standard biochemical tests. Further, bacteria identification, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and phenotypic detection of ESBL production were performed using VITEK 2 Compact as per the instruction of the manufacturer. Socio-demographic and risk factors data were collected using questionnaires. Data were entered by EPI INFO version 7.2.1.0 and analyzed by SPSS version 20.

Results

The overall prevalence of ESBL-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae was 17.1% (46/269; 95% CI: 12.9%–22.7%). A total of 47 isolates were ESBL-positive, of which, 83.0% were E. coli and 17.0% were K. pneumoniae. ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates were also showed high levels of MDR (93.6%) and high rates of co-resistance to aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. However, all isolates were carbapenem susceptible. In the risk factors analysis, Children’s mothers who had lower educational level (primary school) (OR: 2.472, 95% CI: 1.323–4.618, P = 0.0062) and children who used tap water for drinking (OR: 1.714, 95% CI: 1.001–3.659, P = 0.048) were found to be significantly associated with higher ESBL fecal carriage.

Conclusions

In this study, the high prevalence rate of ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae fecal carriage and high level of multidrug resistance among ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae were demonstrated. This suggested that the necessity of routine screening of ESBL is crucial for the early detection and appropriate antibiotics selection for infection caused by ESBL producing pathogens.

Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance among bacterial strains is an emerging problem worldwide [1] with serious consequences on the treatment of infectious diseases [2]. Beta-lactam drugs like penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, and aztreonam are common antibiotics used to combat most bacterial infections [3]. Indiscriminate use of third-generation cephalosporins to treat gram-negative bacterial infections is partly responsible for the emergence of resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics [4], which subsequently led to the emergence of Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBL) producing organisms [3].

ESBL are enzymes produced by gram-negative bacteria that mediate resistance to penicillins, cephalosporins, and monobactams [5]. There is no consensus on the precise definition of ESBL. A commonly used working definition is that the ESBL are β-lactamases capable of conferring bacterial resistance to the penicillins, first, second, and third-generation cephalosporins, and aztreonam (but not the cephamycins or carbapenems) by hydrolysis of these antibiotics, and which are inhibited by β-lactamase inhibitors such as clavulanic acid [6, 7].

ESBLs recognized in the 1980s in Klebsiella species and later in Escherichia coli and other gram-negative bacilli are currently spreading rapidly amongst other members of Enterobacteriaceae, largely due to genes located on plasmids that can distribute across species barriers [8]. The majority ESBLs can be divided into three genotypes: TEM, SHV, and CTX-M [911]. TEM and SHV-type β-lactamases, mainly produced by K. pneumoniae, have spread throughout hospital settings, and CTX-M enzymes, mainly produced by E. coli, have become predominant in the community [12].

Ecoli and K. pneumoniae are common species of Enterobacteriaceae that both have pathogenic potential and that frequently incorporate ESBL-encoding genes. The Infectious Diseases Society of America has listed them as two out of six pathogens for which new drugs are urgently needed to combat resistance development [13]. E. coli and K. pneumoniae cause various infections, such as urinary tract infections (UTIs), gastroenteritis, infant meningitis, wound infection, pneumonia, peritonitis, and bacteremia in both nosocomial and community settings [1416].

ESBL was initially associated with nosocomial outbreaks caused by single enzyme-producing strains, but recent studies have revealed the existence of more complex situations, with significant increases in the frequency of community isolates [17]. ESBL determinants have been detected not only in clinical isolates but also in commensal bacteria from humans and animals, and isolates from products of the food chain and sewage, revealing distribution and suggesting the presence of environmental reservoirs for these resistance determinants [18].

A threatening epidemiological problem is the dissemination of ESBL-producing organisms to healthy people in the community, which might depend on the frequency of ESBL fecal carriage as well as on the presence of ESBL-producing organisms in the food chain [19]. The digestive tract is the main reservoir from which Enterobacteriaceae originate, whatever the type (community or hospital-acquired) of infection. It is also a melting pot where exchanges of resistance genes occur and antibiotic treatments select for the overgrowth of resistant bacteria [20]. Colonization in the intestinal compartment by ESBL-producing isolates has been associated with a high risk for developing infection due to ESBL producers [21]. It may also serve as a reservoir for ESBL resistance genes that can undergo horizontal transmission to other Enterobacteriaceae [22].

Multidrug resistance has been increased all over the world that is considered a public health threat. Several recent investigations reported the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens from different origins including humans, poultry, cattle, and fish that increase the need for routine application of the antimicrobial susceptibility testing to detect the antibiotic of choice as well as the screening of the emerging MDR strains [2330].

Evidence-based data is useful to implement an antimicrobial drug policy and to adopt best-practice infection control measures to prevent the spread of those organisms in health care facilities as well as in the community. However, data on the prevalence of ESBL fecal carriage remain scarce in Ethiopia and to the best of our knowledge, there was no study focusing on children particularly in community settings. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae fecal carriage among children under five years in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Study design, study setting, and data collection

A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted from April to May 2017 at Addis Raey public health center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A consecutive sampling technique was used to collect the stool/rectal specimens from under five years children attending outpatient department (OPD) service after verbal informed consent was taken from all parents or guardians on the behalf of the children. Information on socio-demographic and associated risk factors was collected using structured pretested questionnaires. Data concerning previous antibiotics usage (for the last 12 months) was obtained through medical records review. Under-five years children received antibiotic treatment for the last one week (7 days) before data collection time and were unable to consent to participate in this study were the exclusion criteria. The laboratory analysis was performed at the Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI) Clinical Bacteriology and Mycology National Reference Laboratory in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Laboratory investigation

Specimen collection and processing

Fresh fecal/rectal swab specimens from 269 children were collected and put into a Cary-Blair transport medium, then stored in an ice pack and transported to Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI) Clinical Bacteriology and Mycology National Reference Laboratory within the same day of collection. Fecal samples were inoculated on MacConkey agar plates and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours on the same day of collection.

Bacterial isolation and identification

All fecal/rectal swab samples were cultured on MacConkey agar (Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, United Kingdom) and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. E. coli and K. pneumoniae were isolated based on their colony morphology, pigment production (pink to colorless flat or mucoid colonies due to lactose fermentation), and Gram-staining reaction (Gram-negative rods). Identification of isolates was confirmed by biochemical tests using standard procedures [31]. An isolate was considered as E. coli when it is Indole positive, citrate negative, lysine positive, gas and acid producer, ferments mannitol, urea negative, and motile. An isolate was considered as K. pneumoniae when it is indole negative, citrate positive, ferments mannitol, lysine positive, urea slows producing, and non-motile. Further bacterial identification, antibiotic susceptibility test (AST), and phenotypic detection of ESBL production were performed using VITEK 2 Compact (bioMe´rieux, France) as per the instruction of the manufacturer.

Identification of bacterial isolates by VITEK 2

The VITEK 2 compact system is an automated microbiology bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility system. Uses advanced colorimetry technology to determine individual biochemical reactions contained in a variety of microbe identification cards. After inoculation with a standardized suspension of the unknown organism, each self-contained card is incubated and read by the instrument’s internal optics. Comparison of results to known species-specific reactions in the VITEK 2 database yields organism identifications. A transmittance optical system allows the interpretation of test reactions using different wavelengths in the visible spectrum. During incubation, each test reaction is read every 15 minutes to measure either turbidity or colored products of substrate metabolism. In addition, a special algorithm is used to eliminate false readings due to small bubbles that may be present.

Gram-negative bacteria identification card (ID-GN) was used for the identification of isolated bacteria. This card is used for the automated identification of 135 taxa of the most significant fermenting and non-fermenting gram-negative bacilli.

Gram-negative bacteria identification card (ID-GN) (bioMe´rieux SA, France) was used for the identification of isolated bacteria. This card is used for the automated identification of 135 taxa of the most significant fermenting and non-fermenting gram-negative bacilli. The Bacterial suspension was prepared aseptically by transferring 3.0 ml of sterile saline (0.45% to 0.5% NaCl, pH 4.5 to 7.0) into two clear plastic (polystyrene) test tubes. Then using a sterile loop transfer a sufficient number of morphologically similar colonies (pure culture) to the first saline tubes. Check the density of suspension (equivalent to 0.50 to 0.63 McFarland standard using a turbidity meter (DensiChek). Transfer 145ul of the suspension prepared in the first tube to the second tube. The first bacterial suspension tube was used for identification and the second tube was used for AST and ESBL tests.

Antibiotic susceptibility testing

AST-GN86 card (bioMe´rieux SA, France) was used for AST and ESBL tests. Susceptibility test for 18 antimicrobials of different classes which includes: penicillins (ampicillin), beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations (amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and ampicillin/sulbactam), cephalosporins (cefazolin, cefuroxime, cefuroxime axetil, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, and cefepime), carbapenems (ertapenem and imipenem), aminoglycosides (gentamicin and tobramycin), fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin), tetracycline, nitrofurantoin, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole was performed using AST-GN86 card by VITEK 2.

The results of the susceptibility test were interpreted as sensitive, intermediate, and resistant based on the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guideline [32]. VITEK 2 also performs the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC). Multidrug resistance is defined as non-susceptibility to at least one agent in three or more antimicrobial categories [33].

ESBL test

VITEK 2 ESBL test is a confirmatory test to detect the presence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBLs) in E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and Klebsiella oxytoca. AST-GN86 cards have drugs for ESBL confirmation.

Concentrations:

Cefepime (1 μg/ml)            -Cefepime/Clavulanic Acid (1/10 μg/ml)

Cefotaxime (0.5 μg/ml)        -Cefotaxime/Clavulanic Acid (0.5/4 μg/ml)

Ceftazidime (0.5 μg/ml)        -Ceftazidime/Clavulanic Acid (0.5/4 μg/ml)

The ESBL analysis for the VITEK 2 system is based on monitoring organism activity (growth) in seven different wells on the test card. One well is a control containing only growth media. The other six are cefepime, cefotaxime, and ceftazidime, each with and without clavulanic acid.

Organism activity is monitored in the control well to determine whether sufficient activity is present to complete the analysis and to determine the length of incubation. No ESBL result is reported unless the organism reaches predetermined growth thresholds. Once the organism reaches the exponential phase, incubation is extended a set amount of time to evaluate the activity in the antimicrobial wells with and without clavulanic acid.

Test Principle: The detection of an ESBL is based on the inhibition of activity in the presence of clavulanic acid. The VITEK 2 analysis looks for growth patterns that exhibit activity in the well containing the antimicrobial without clavulanic acid and limited activity in the corresponding antimicrobial well containing clavulanic acid. Each of the three pairs of wells is evaluated independently. If any one of the three pairs demonstrates the expected growth pattern (difference in activity with and without clavulanic acid) a positive test result is reported.

Result interpretation: Negative: strain does not produce ESBLs.

Positive: strain produces ESBL. Test interpretation for ESBL positive should be reported as resistant for all penicillins, cephalosporins, and aztreonam.

Quality control

Quality control was done for all reagents. Culture media were tested for sterility and performance. Moreover, for the ESBL confirmatory test, standard organisms; E. coli ATCC 25922(ESBL negative) and K. pneumoniae ATCC 700603(ESBL positive) were performed as recommended by the CLSI guideline [32].

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study proposal was reviewed and approved by the department of research and ethics review committee of the Medical Laboratory Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University (Ref. No. MLS/271/17). Written informed consent was obtained from each parent or guardian on behalf of the children after a brief explanation of the purpose of the study before the interview and sample collection.

Statistical analysis

Data were entered using EPI INFO version 7.2.1.0 and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20 (IBM-SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A simple frequency was used to describe the study population with the socio-demographic, clinical condition, and other relevant variables. Chi-square analysis was used to explore risk factors associated with the prevalence of ESBL carriage by using an odds ratio with a 95% confidence limit. A value of p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. The data were presented in tables.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics

The characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. In total, 269 children were enrolled in this study. Of which, 139 (51.7%) were female and 130 (48.3%) were male. The median age of the study participants was 18 months (range from 1 to 59 months), 155 (57.6%) were infants (1–23 months) and 114 (42.4%) were children (24–59 months). Most of the study participants 206 (76.6%) had family members of 2 to 5. The majority of children’s mothers 143 (53.2%) were within the age group of 25–34. The study participant’s mother’s educational status showed that 130 (48.3%) of them attended primary school. Concerning the source of drinking water for the children, the majority were used tap water 128 (47.6%). The majority of children’s family 236 (87.7%) were using communal latrines (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of study participants.

Characteristics Frequency Percent
Age of children 29days-23months 155 57.6
24–59 months 114 42.4
Gender Male 130 48.3
Female 139 51.7
Family size 2–5 206 76.6
6–9 57 21.2
10–13 6 2.2
Age of mothers 15–24 80 29.7
25–34 143 53.2
35–44 30 11.2
45–54 1 0.4
Don’t know 15 5.6
Mother Educational level Illiterate/cannot read and write/ 53 19.7
Illiterate /able to read and write/ 3 1.1
Primary 130 48.3
Secondary 61 22.7
College Graduate 10 3.7
Don’t know 12 4.5
Parent Income <500 birr 12 4.5
500-1000birr 46 17.1
1000 -2000birr 82 30.5
>2000birr 129 48.0
Place of resident Addis Ababa 260 96.7
Out of Addis Ababa 9 3.3
House condition Private 47 17.5
Government rental 87 32.3
Private rental 135 50.2
Source of drinking water for the child Tap Water Yes 128 47.6
No 141 52.4
Boiled & Cooled Water Yes 26 9.7
No 243 90.3
Treated Water Yes 34 12.6
No 235 87.4
Bottled Water Yes 113 42.0
No 156 58.0
Filtered Water Yes 1 0.4
No 268 99.6
Toilet use for family Private 33 12.3
Communal 236 87.7

Clinical conditions of study participants

The nutritional status of most children indicated that normal 252 (93.6%). The majority of children were born in health facilities (health center 145 (53.9%) and hospital 108 (40.1%)). About 220 (81.8%) of the study participants were born by normal delivery (vaginal delivery). Most children 216 (80.3%) had exposure to previous antibiotics usage. However, the majority of the study participants had no exposure to hospital visits 220 (81.8%), previous hospital admission 248 (92.2%), and previous surgery 267 (99.3%) (Table 2).

Table 2. Clinical conditions of study participants.

Characteristics Frequency Percent
Nutrition Status Normal 252 93.6
MAM 14 5.2
SAM 3 1.1
Place of birth Home 12 4.5
Health center 145 53.9
Hospital 108 40.1
Private Clinic 4 1.5
Mode of delivery Vaginal Delivery 220 81.8
Cesarean Section 49 12.2
Prior intake of antibiotics Yes 216 80.3
No 53 19.7
Hospital visit Yes 49 18.2
No 220 81.8
Previous hospital admission Yes 21 7.8
No 248 92.2
Previous surgery Yes 2 0.7
No 267 99.3
Diarrhea for the last three months Yes 130 48.3
No 139 51.7
GI symptom Yes 120 44.6
No 149 55.4
Number of visits First 56 20.8
Second 63 23.4
Third 87 32.3
More than three 63 23.4

MAM: Moderate Acute Malnutrition SAM: Severe Acute Malnutrition GI: Gastroenteritis.

Prevalence of E. coli and Klebsiella species

A total of 264 E. coli and Klebsiella species were isolated from 269 participants’ fecal/rectal swab samples. E. coli 224 (84.8%) was the most commonly isolated bacteria followed by K. pneumoniae 39 (14.8%) and K. oxytoca 1 (0.4%).

Prevalence of ESBL fecal carriage

The overall prevalence of ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumonia fecal carriage among under five years children was 17.1% (46/269; 95% CI: 12.9%–22.7%). Out of 264 E. coli and Klebsiella species isolates, 47 were ESBL-positive. Of which, 83.0% (39/47) were E. coli and 17.0% (8/47) were K. pneumoniae. One child was ESBL-positive for both E. coli and K. pneumoniae. ESBL fecal carriage proportion was higher among children in the age groups of 29 days to 23 months 19.4% (30/155). There was no significant difference in the number of ESBL fecal carriage between males 17.7% (23/130) and females 16.5% (23/139). ESBL fecal carriage was slightly higher among children who had moderate acute malnutrition 21.4% (3/14). ESBL carriage was low in children with a history of prior intake of antibiotics 16.7% (36/216), the previous hospital visits 14.3% (7/49), hospital admission 14.3% (3/21), who had at least one episode of diarrhea for the last three months 16.9% (22/130) and GI symptoms 15.8% (19/120) than their counterparts (Table 3).

Table 3. Fecal carriage of ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae among under five years children.

Characteristics Total ESBL
N = 269 Negative N = 223 Positive N = 46
N (%) N (%)
Age 29days-23months 155 125(80.6) 30(19.4)
24–59 months 114 98(86.0) 16(14.0)
Sex Male 130 107(82.3) 23(17.7)
Female 139 116(83.5) 23(16.5)
Nutrition Status Normal 252 209(82.9) 43(17.1)
MAM 14 11(78.6) 3(21.4)
SAM 3 3(100) 0(0.0)
Place of birth Home 12 9(75.0) 3(25.0)
Health center 145 121(83.4) 24(16.6)
Hospital 108 90(83.3) 18(16.7)
Private Clinic 4 3(75.0) 1(25.0)
Mode of delivery Vaginal delivery 220 182(82.7) 38(17.3)
Cesarean Section 49 41(83.7) 8(16.3)
Prior intake of antibiotics Yes 216 180(83.3) 36(16.7)
No 53 43(81.1) 10(18.9)
Hospital visit Yes 49 42(85.7) 7(14.3)
No 220 181(82.3) 39(17.7)
Previous hospital admission Yes 21 18(85.7) 3(14.3)
No 248 205(82.7) 43(17.3)
Previous surgery Yes 2 2(100.0) 0(0.0)
No 267 221(82.8) 46(17.2)
Diarrhea for the last three months Yes 130 108(83.1) 22(16.9)
No 139 115(82.7) 24(17.3)
GI symptom Yes 120 101(84.2) 19(15.8)
No 149 122(81.9) 27(18.1)
Number of visits First 56 45(80.4) 11(19.6)
Second 63 46(73.0) 17(27.0)
Third 87 78(89.7) 9(10.3)
More than three 63 54(85.7) 9(14.3)

Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern

The antibiotics susceptibility pattern of ESBL producing and non-ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates is presented in Table 4. Overall, the highest resistance level was recorded for Ampicillin (77.2%), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (60.8%), and tetracycline (57.4%). K. pneumoniae was 100% resistant to ampicillin in both ESBL and non-ESBL producers. A high level of resistance was observed against cephalosporins among ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates compared to the non-ESBL producer that shows low or no resistance.

Table 4. Antimicrobial resistance pattern of ESBL producing and non-ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates.

Antimicrobial Agents ESBL producing Non -ESBL producing Total (N = 263)
E. coli (N = 39) K. pneumonia (N = 8) Total E. coli (N = 185) K. pneumonia (N = 31)
Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance
Ampicillin 37(94.9) 8(100) 45(95.7) 127(68.6) 31(100) 203(77.2)
Amoxicillin/Clavulanic Acid 17(43.6) 2(25) 19(40.4) 50 (27.0) 3 (9.7) 72(27.3)
Ampicillin/Sulbactam 30(76.9) 6(75.5) 36(76.5) 101 (54.6) 10(32.3) 147(55.8)
Cefazolin 29(74.4) 7(87.5) 36(76.6) 23 (12.4) 1 (3.2) 60(22.8)
Cefuroxime 34(87.2) 7(87.5) 41(87.2) 16 (8.6) 0(0) 57(21.7)
Cefuroxime Axetil 37(94.9) 7(87.5) 44(93.6) 22 (11.9) 1 (3.2) 67(25.7)
Ceftazidime 28(71.8) 7(87.5) 35(74.5) 0 (0) 0(0) 35(13.3)
Ceftriaxone 29(74.4) 7(87.5) 36(76.6) 0(0) 0(0) 36(13.7)
Cefepime 29(74.4) 7(87.5) 36(76.6) 0(0) 0(0) 36(13.7)
Ertapenem 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)
Imipenem 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)
Gentamicin 4(10.3) 4(50.0) 8(17.0) 1 (0.5) 1 (3.2) 10(3.8)
Tobramycin 7(18.0) 5(62.5) 12(25.5) 2 (1.0) 1 (3.2) 15(5.7)
Ciprofloxacin 10(25.6) 2(25.0) 12 (25.5) 3 (1.5) 0(0) 15(5.7)
Levofloxacin 9(23.1) 1(12.5) 10(21.3) 3 (1.6) 0(0) 13(4.9)
Tetracycline 29(74.4) 4(50.0) 33(70.2) 105(56.7) 13 (41.9) 151(57.4)
Nitrofurantoin 8(20.5) 4(50.0) 12(25.5) 7(3.7) 1 1(35.5) 30(11.4)
Trimethoprim/Sulfemethoxazole 32(82.1) 5(62.5) 37(78.7) 110(59.5) 13(41.9) 160(60.8)

High level of resistance for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (78.7%), followed by tetracycline (70.2%), ciprofloxacin (25.5%), and gentamicin (17%) were detected in ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae. In the present study, ESBL and non-ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates were 100% susceptible to carbapenems (ertapenem and imipenem) which are the most active drugs against ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates (Table 4).

Multi-drug resistant pattern

Overall, 65.4% (172/263) of ESBL producing and non-ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates were multidrug-resistant (MDR, resistance to at least 3 antibiotics from different classes). Among the total MDR, E. coli was 86.6% (149/172) and K. pneumonia was 13.4% (23/172). The overall proportion of MDR was 93.6% among ESBL producers and 59% among non-ESBL producers of E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates. ESBL producers of E. coli accounted for 94.9% (37/39) and K. pneumoniae accounted for 87.5% (7/8) of MDR. Non-ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumonia accounted for 60.5% (112/185) and 51.6% (16/31) MDR respectively (Table 5).

Table 5. Multidrug resistance pattern of ESBL producing and non-ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates.

Isolates Level of antibiotics resistance ((number (%)) MDR (≥R3)
R0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 ≥R7
ESBL positive E. coli (n = 39) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.6) 1 (2.6) 3 (7.7) 3 (7.7) 10 (25.6) 10 (25.6) 11 (28.2) 37 (94.9)
K. pneumonia (n = 8) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (12.5) 1 (12.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (12.5) 0 (0.0) 5 (62.5) 7 (87.5)
ESBL negative E. coli (n = 185) 42 (22.7) 11 (5.9) 20 (10.8) 26 (14.1) 62 (33.5) 22 (11.9) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 112 (60.5)
K. pneumonia (n = 31) 0 (0.0) 9 (29.0) 6 (19.4) 6 (19.4) 8 (25.8) 2 (6.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 16 (51.6)
Total (N = 263) 42 (16.0) 21 (8.0) 28 (10.6) 36 (13.7) 73 (27.8) 35 (13.3) 11 (4.2) 17 (6.5) 172 (65.4)

R0: resistance to no antibiotics, R1-6: resistance to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, R7: resistance to ≥7 antibiotics; MDR: Multidrug resistance.

MDR (≥R3): resistance to 3 or more antibiotics from different classes.

Risk factors associated with ESBL fecal carriage

In this study, different types of possible risk factors were analyzed and only children’s mothers who had lower educational level (primary school) (OR: 2.472, 95% CI: 1.323–4.618, P = 0.0062) and children who used tap water for drinking (OR: 1.714, 95% CI: 1.001–3.659, P = 0.048) were found to be significantly associated with higher ESBL fecal carriage. On the other hand, there was no significant association were found among age groups (OR: 1.379, 95% CI: 0.791–2.406, P = 0.252), sex (OR: 1.069, 95% CI: 0.632–1.810, P = 0.803), previous antibiotics usage (OR: 0.883, 95% CI: 0.469–1.663, P = 0.703), hospital visit (OR: 0.806, 95% CI: 0.383–1.693, P = 0.563), hospital admission (OR: 0.824, 95% CI: 0.279–2.432, P = 0.721), and undergoing a surgical operation in the last 12 months (OR: 1.208, 95% CI: 1.144–1.276, P = 0.519) with higher ESBL fecal carriage (Table 6).

Table 6. Risk factors for ESBL fecal carriage among under five years children.

Characteristics Total ESBL OR 95%CI X2 p-value
Negative N = 223 Positive N = 46 Lower Upper
N = 269
N (%) N (%)
Age 29days-23months 155 125(80.6) 30(19.4) 1.379 0.791 2.406 1.311 0.252
24–59 months 114 98(86.0) 16(14.0)
Sex Male 130 107(82.3) 23(17.7) 1.069 0.632 1.810 0.62 0.803
Female 139 116(83.5) 23(16.5)
Prior intake of antibiotics Yes 216 180(83.3) 36(16.7) 0.883 0.469 1.663 0.145 0.703
No 53 43(81.1) 10(18.9)
Hospital visit Yes 49 42(85.7) 7(14.3) 0.806 0.383 1.693 0.335 0.563
No 220 181(82.3) 39(17.7)
Previous hospital admission Yes 21 18(85.7) 3(14.3) 0.824 0.279 2.432 0.127 0.721
No 248 205(82.7) 43(17.3)
Previous surgery Yes 2 2(100.0) 0(0.0) 1.208 1.144 1.276 0.416 0.519
No 267 221(82.8) 46(17.2)
Mother Educational level Illiterate/cannot read and write/ 53 46(86.8) 7(13.2) 0.690 0.2901 1.644 0.405 0.5245
Illiterate /able to read and write/ 3 3(100.0) 0(0.0) 0.797 0.0392 1.618 0.318 0.5727
Primary 130 105(80.8) 25(19.2) 2.472 1.323 4.618 7.487 0.0062
Secondary 61 50(82.0) 11(18.0) 1.087 0.5152 2.295 0.000 0.9788
College Graduate 10 8(80.0) 2(20.0) 1.222 0.2509 5.948 0.032 0.8573
Don’t know 12 11(91.7) 1(8.3) 0.428 0.0539 3.401 0.187 0.6650
Source of drinking water for the child Tap Water Yes 128 100(78.1) 28(21.9) 1.714 1.001 3.659 3.927 0.048
No 141 123(87.2) 18(12.8)
Boiled & Cooled Water Yes 26 23(88.5) 3(11.5) 0.652 0.217 1.956 0.687 0.407
No 243 200(82.3) 43(17.7)
Treated Water Yes 34 31(91.2) 3(8.8) 0.482 0.158 1.469 1.881 0.178
No 235 192(81.7) 43(18.3)
Bottled Water Yes 113 94(83.2) 19(16.8) 0.971 0.569 1.658 0.11 0.915
No 156 129(82.7) 27(17.3)
Filtered Water Yes 1 1(100.0) 0(0.0) 1.207 1.143 1.275 0.376 0.540
No 268 222(82.8) 46(17.2)

Discussion

Different studies were conducted on the prevalence of ESBL fecal carriage around the world and showed a large variation from country to country. There were limited data on the fecal carriage of ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae and to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that reported the prevalence of ESBL fecal carriage among children under five years in Ethiopia.

In the present study, the overall prevalence of ESBL-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae fecal carriage among children under five years was 17.1% (46/269; 95% CI: 12.9%–22.7%). This prevalence is lower compared to the report of a previous study by Desta K et al. [34], which reported that 52% of hospitalized patients were carriers of ESBL. It is also lower than the study in Guinea-Bissau (32.6%) [13] and Tanzania (34.3%) [35]. In contrast, the prevalence in this study is relatively comparable with the study in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (23.2%) [36], Spain (24.0%) [37], and Lebanese (24.8%) [12]. On the other hand, the prevalence of ESBL observed in this study is higher compared to the study in Madagascar (10.1%) [17], South Africa (4.7%) [7], and France (4.6%) [21]. The differences seen in the prevalence might be due to the differences in study participants, study settings, and countries.

In the present study, the predominant ESBL producing isolate was E. coli (83%) followed by K. pneumoniae (17%). Similarly, E. coli was the predominant ESBL-producing isolate in a study from Turkey [38] and Tanzania [5]. The studies in Lao People’s Democratic Republic [36] and Zimbabwe [39] also showed that 83.3%, 78%, and 95.8% ESBL producing isolate was E. coli, respectively. Studies in Madagascar [17], Korea [40], and Lebanese [12] also demonstrated that E. coli is the predominant ESBL-producing isolate.

In this study, ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumonia isolates showed a high level of resistance against trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (78.7%), followed by tetracycline (70.2%), ciprofloxacin (25.5%), and gentamicin (17%). Similarly, a study from Tanzania was reported high resistance to tetracycline (100%), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (97%), ciprofloxacin (69%), and gentamicin (44%) [5]. In Madagascar, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (91.3%), gentamicin (76.1%), and ciprofloxacin (50.0%) were resistant [41]. In Spain, Nalidixic acid (64.7%), ciprofloxacin (32.4%), levofloxacin (32.4%), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (41.2%) were resistant [37].

In our study, the overall prevalence of MDR was 93.6% among ESBL producer E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates. This result is in line with the findings of studies conducted in Tanzania [35], MDR was 94%, in Guinea-Bissau [13], nearly all isolates were MDR and in Madagascar [41], most ESBL isolates were MDR strains. However, it was higher than a study conducted in Spain, 52.4% of the ESBL were resistant to three or more antimicrobial classes [12].

ESBL-producing bacteria are frequently associated with co-resistance to non-beta-lactam antimicrobial agents as demonstrated in several studies [5, 12, 13, 17], which may critically complicate the treatment of severe bacterial infections and leaves very few choices for treatment (limits the therapeutic choice to carbapenems). Interestingly, unlike the previous study by Desta et al. [34], which reported that 2% (5/267) of ESBL producing isolates were resistant to carbapenem and all detected in children, in the present study all ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates were susceptible to carbapenems (ertapenem and imipenem), which are the most active drugs against ESBL producer.

The risk factors analysis data in this study demonstrated that children’s mothers who had lower educational level (primary school) (OR: 2.472, 95% CI: 1.323–4.618, P = 0.0062) and children who used tap water for drinking (OR: 1.714, 95% CI: 1.001–3.659, P = 0.048) were found to be significantly associated with higher ESBL fecal carriage. Several studies reported the presence of ESBL producing isolates in drinking water [4244], which could serve as reservoirs for ESBL producing bacteria.

On the other hand, the finding from this study revealed that there was no association between age and ESBL carriage (OR: 1.379, 95% CI: 0.791–2.406, p = 0.252), which is similar to a study in Guinea-Bissau [13] and Madagascar [17]. However, this result is different from the study by Tellevik MG et al. [35] which reported that having age equal to or below 12 months was significantly associated with ESBL carriage (P = 0.012; OR = 1.82; 95% CI: 1.14–2.91), this was also different from French study [21] in which the risk of ESBL carriage was higher among children over 1 year old than in younger children (6.5% versus 2.5%, respectively; OR = 2.69, 95% CI [0.95–7.61]). Our study also showed that there was no significant difference between male and female ESBL carriers (OR: 1.069, 95% CI: 0.632–1.810, P = 0.801), this finding is similar to a study by Herindrainy P et al. [17] and Erdoğan DC et al. [38] but different from the study by Hijazi SM et al. [12], which reported that males had a higher colonization frequency (33.9%) than did females (15.9%) (P = 0.09).

The risk analysis result of the present study also showed that there was no association between the previous usage of antibiotics (in the last 12 months) and ESBL colonization (OR: 0.883, 95% CI: 0.469–1.667, P = 0.703), which is in agreement with the study conducted in Guinea-Bissau [13], Tanzania [5] and Lebanese [12]. However, it is different from other studies in Tanzania [35], the Democratic Republic [36], and France [21] that indicated the use of antibiotics as a risk factor for ESBL carriage.

In Turkey [38] and Lebanese [12] studies, ESBL carriage rates were found to be significantly higher in those who were hospitalized. However, this study was not demonstrated a significant association between previous hospital admission and high rate of ESBL carriage (OR: 0.824, 95% CI: 0.279–2.432, P = 0.721), this is similar to the study in Guinea-Bissau [13]. The study by Erdoğan DC et al. [38] also noted that undergoing a surgical operation (P = 0.005) was associated with higher ESBL carriage rates. However, our finding not showed an association between ESBL carriage and undergoing a surgical operation. In this study, hospital visits (OR: 0.806, 95% CI: 0.383–1.693, P = 0.563) in the last 12 months were also not associated with higher ESBL carriage rates.

Limitation

This study was limited to test ESBL production only in E. coli and K. pneumoniae. In addition, a negative ESBL test result does not rule out the presence of an ESBL masked by an AmpC beta-lactamase. Therefore, this may probably lower the prevalence. Moreover, molecular characterization of ESBL encoding genes was not conducted due to our laboratory has no facility for molecular analysis.

Conclusions

This study was reported a high prevalence rate (17.1%) of ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae fecal carriage among children under five years. ESBL producing isolates also showed high levels of MDR (93.6%) and high rates of co-resistance to aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. This suggested that the necessity of routine screening of ESBL is crucial for the early detection and appropriate antibiotics selection for infection caused by ESBL producing pathogens. The risk analysis of this study demonstrated that children’s mothers who had lower educational levels (primary school) and children who used tap water for drinking were found to be significantly associated with higher ESBL fecal carriage.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Ethiopian Public Health Institute Clinical Bacteriology and Mycology National Reference Laboratory for allowing us to do this study in their laboratory. We would also like to thank all study subjects who were volunteered to participate in this study and Addis Raey health center staff who assisted with the study subject’s recruitment.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included in this manuscript.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Chander A, Shrestha CD. Prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae urinary isolates in a tertiary care hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. BMC research notes. 2013;6(1):487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Shaikh S, Fatima J, Shakil S, Rizvi SMD, Kamal MA. Antibiotic resistance and extended-spectrum beta-lactamases: Types, epidemiology, and treatment. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2015;22(1):90–101. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2014.08.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Shristi R, Gokhale S, Adhikari B. Prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases among Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp isolates in Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal. Journal of microbiology and infectious diseases. 2015;5(2):69–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Akingbade OA., Ogiogwa IJ., Okonko IO., Okerentugba PO., Innocent-Adiele HC., Nwanze JC., et al. Plasmid Profile of Isolated Klebsiella species in a tertiary Hospital in Ogun State, Nigeria. World Applied Sciences Journal. 2013;21(3).371–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Moremi N, Claus H, Vogel U, Mshana SE. Faecal carriage of CTX-M extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae among street children dwelling in Mwanza city, Tanzania. PloS one. 2017;12(9):e0184592. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Paterson DL, Bonomo RA. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases: a clinical update. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2005;18(4):657–86. doi: 10.1128/CMR.18.4.657-686.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mahomed S, Coovadia YM. Faecal carriage of Extended Spectrum Beta-lactamase producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in children from the community of. International Journal of Infection Control. 2014, V11:i3. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Taru S, Shukla D, Ramachandran VG, Rumpa S, and Amir MK. “Emergence of Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamases Producing Multi-Drug Resistant Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli in Children Under Five Years”. Acta Scientifica International Journal of Medical Science. 1.1 (2015): 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.AL-Subol I, Youssef N. Prevalence of CTX-M, TEM and SHV Beta-lactamases in Clinical Isolates of Escherichia Coli and Klebsiella Pneumoniae Isolated From Aleppo University Hospitals, Aleppo, Syria. Arch Clin Infect Dis. 2015;10(2):e22540. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sharma M, Pathak S, Srivastava P. Prevalence and antibiogram of Extended Spectrum β-Lactamase (ESBL) producing Gram-negative bacilli and further molecular characterization of ESBL producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(10):2173–77. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/6460.3462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Östholm-Balkhed Å, Tärnberg M, Nilsson M, Nilsson LE, Hanberger H, Hällgren A. Travel-associated faecal colonization with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae: incidence and risk factors. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2013;68(9):2144–53. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkt167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hijazi SM, Fawzi MA, Ali FM, Abd El Galil KH. Prevalence and characterization of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases producing Enterobacteriaceae in healthy children and associated risk factors. Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials. 2016;15(1):3–. doi: 10.1186/s12941-016-0121-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Isendahl J, Turlej-Rogacka A, Manjuba C, Rodrigues A, Giske CG, Nauclér P. Fecal carriage of ESBL-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae in children in Guinea-Bissau: a hospital-based cross-sectional study. PloS one. 2012;7(12):e51981. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051981 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lee J-C, Lee N-Y, Lee H-C, Huang W-H, Tsui K-C, Chang C-M, et al. Clinical characteristics of urosepsis caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumonia and their emergence in the community. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology, and Infection. 2012;45(2):127–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2011.09.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rezaie Keikhaie K, Jahantigh HR, Bagheri R, Rezaie Kehkhaie A. The Effects of the Ethanol Extract of Dracocephalum Moldavica (Badrashbu) Against Strains of Antibiotic-Resistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumonia. Int J Infect. 2018;5(1):e65295. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kim MH, Lee HJ, Park KS, Suh JT. Molecular characteristics of extended-spectrum β-lactamases in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae and the prevalence of qnr in extended-spectrum β-lactamase isolates in a tertiary care hospital in Korea. Yonsei Med J. 2010;51(5):768–74. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2010.51.5.768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Herindrainy P, Randrianirina F, Ratovoson R, Ratsima Hariniana E, Buisson Y, Genel N, et al. Rectal carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing gram-negative bacilli in community settings in Madagascar. PloS one. 2011;6(7):e22738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022738 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ogbolu DO, Alli OAT, Olanipekun LB, Ojo OI, Makinde OO. Faecal carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) -producing commensal Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli from hospital out-patients in Southern Nigeria. International journal of medical sciences. 2013;5(3):97–105. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Valverde A, Grill F, Coque TM, Pintado V, Baquero F, Cantón R, et al. High rate of intestinal colonization with extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing organisms in household contacts of infected community patients. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2008;46(8):2796–9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01008-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Woerther PL, Burdet C, Chachaty E, Andremont A. Trends in human fecal carriage of extended-spectrum β-lactamases in the community: toward the globalization of CTX-M. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2013;26(4):744–58. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00023-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Birgy A, Cohen R, Levy C, Bidet P, Courroux C, Benani M, et al. Community faecal carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in French children. BMC infectious diseases. 2012;12:315. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-12-315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Weisenberg SA, Mediavilla JR, Chen L, Alexander EL, Rhee KY, Kreiswirth BN, et al. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in international travelers and non-travelers in New York City. PloS one. 2012;7(9):e45141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Makharita RR, El-Kholy I, Hetta HF, Abdelaziz MH, Hagagy FI, Ahmed AA, et al. Antibiogram and Genetic Characterization of Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens Incriminated in Healthcare-Associated Infections. Infect Drug Resist. 2020;13:3991–4002. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S276975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Algammal AM, Hetta HF, Elkelish A, Alkhalifah DHH, Hozzein WN, Batiha GE, et al. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): One Health Perspective Approach to the Bacterium Epidemiology, Virulence Factors, Antibiotic-Resistance, and Zoonotic Impact. Infect Drug Resist. 2020;13:3255–65. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S272733 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Algammal AM, Hashem HR, Alfifi KJ, Hetta HF, Sheraba NS, Ramadan H, et al. atpD gene sequencing, multidrug resistance traits, virulence-determinants, and antimicrobial resistance genes of emerging XDR and MDR-Proteus mirabilis. Scientific reports. 2021;11(1):9476. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-88861-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Algammal AM, El-Sayed ME, Youssef FM, Saad SA, Elhaig MM, Batiha GE, et al. Prevalence, the antibiogram, and the frequency of virulence genes of the most predominant bacterial pathogens incriminated in calf pneumonia. AMB Express. 2020;10(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s13568-020-01037-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Algammal AM, Hetta HF, Batiha GE, Hossein WN, El Kazzaz WM, Hashem HR, et al. Virulence-determinants and antibiotic-resistance genes of MDR-E.coli isolated from secondary infections following FMD-outbreak in cattle. Scientific reports. 2020;10(1):19779. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75914-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Algammal AM, Mabrok M, Sivaramasamy E, Youssef FM, Atwa MH, El-Kholy AW, et al. Emerging MDR-Pseudomonas aeruginosa in fish commonly harbor oprL and toxA virulence genes and bla(TEM), bla(CTX-M), and tetA antibiotic-resistance genes. Scientific reports. 2020;10(1):15961. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72264-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Algammal AM, Mohamed MF, Tawfiek BA, Hozzein WN, El Kazzaz WM, Mabrok M. Molecular Typing, Antibiogram and PCR-RFLP Based Detection of Aeromonas hydrophila Complex Isolated from Oreochromis niloticus. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland). 2020;9(3). doi: 10.3390/pathogens9030238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Abolghait SK, Fathi AG, Youssef FM, Algammal AM. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from chicken meat and giblets often produces staphylococcal enterotoxin B (SEB) in non-refrigerated raw chicken livers. Int J Food Microbiol. 2020;328:108669. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108669 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Win WC, Allen SD, Janda WM, Koneman EW, Procop GW, Schreckenberger PC, et al. editors. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; Colour atlas and textbook of diagnostic microbiology. In: Enterobacteriaceae. 2006. p. 211–302. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Vol. 26th ed., CLSI supplement M100S.Wayne, PA: Clinical and laboratory standards institute. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Magiorakos A, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2011;18(3):268–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03570.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Desta K, Woldeamanuel Y, Azazh A, Mohammod H, Desalegn D, Shimelis D, et al. High Gastrointestinal Colonization Rate with Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae in Hospitalized Patients: Emergence of Carbapenemase-Producing K. pneumoniae in Ethiopia. PloS one. 2016;11(8):e0161685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161685 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Tellevik MG, Blomberg B, Kommedal Ø, Maselle SY, Langeland N, Moyo SJ. High prevalence of faecal carriage of esbl-producing Enterobacteriaceae among children in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. PloS one. 2016;11(12):1–13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Stoesser N, Xayaheuang S, Vongsouvath M, Phommasone K, Elliott I, Del Ojo Elias C, et al. Colonization with Enterobacteriaceae producing ESBLs in children attending pre-school childcare facilities in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2014;70(6):1893–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Fernández-Reyes M, Vicente D, Gomariz M, Esnal O, Landa J, Oñate E, et al. High rate of fecal carriage of extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in healthy children in Gipuzkoa, northern Spain. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2014;58(3):1822–4. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01503-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Çakir Erdoğan D, Cömert F, Aktaş E, Köktürk F, Külah C. Fecal carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and klebsiella spp. In a Turkish community. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences. 2017;47(1):172–9. doi: 10.3906/sag-1512-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wilmore SMS, Kranzer K, Williams A, Makamure B, Nhidza AF, Mayini J, et al. Carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in HIV-infected children in Zimbabwe. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2017;66(5):609–15. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.000474 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kim J, Lee JY, Ph D, Kim SI, Song W, Kim J-s, et al. Rates of Fecal Transmission of Extended-Spectrum β -Lactamase-Producing and Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Among Patients in Intensive Care Units in Korea. Ann Lab Med. 2014:20–5. doi: 10.3343/alm.2014.34.1.20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Andriatahina T, Randrianirina F, Hariniana ER, Talarmin A, Raobijaona H, Buisson Y, et al. High prevalence of fecal carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in a pediatric unit in Madagascar. BMC infectious diseases. 2010;10:204–. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Abera B, Kibret M, Mulu W. Extended-Spectrum beta (β)-Lactamases and Antibiogram in Enterobacteriaceae from Clinical and Drinking Water Sources from Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia. PloS one. 2016;11(11):1–10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Swedan S, Abu Alrub H. Antimicrobial Resistance, Virulence Factors, and Pathotypes of Escherichia coli Isolated from Drinking Water Sources in Jordan. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland). 2019;8(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mahmud ZH, Kabir MH, Ali S, Moniruzzaman M, Imran KM, Nafiz TN, et al. Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia coli in Drinking Water Samples From a Forcibly Displaced, Densely Populated Community Setting in Bangladesh. Front Public Health. 2020;8:228. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Abdelazeem Mohamed Algammal

25 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-25316

Fecal carriage of extended spectrum beta -lactamase producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae among children under five years in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.   

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tola,

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.

 A major revision is required. The manuscript should be revised for English Editing and grammar mistakes. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 09 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,

Abdelazeem Mohamed Algammal, Prof, Ph.D

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 amend your current ethics statement to address the following concern:

Please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

[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: N/A

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: No

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: Comments to authors:

- The current study is interesting; however, the authors should address the following comments to improve the quality of the manuscript:

- The manuscript should be revised for language editing and grammar mistakes by a native English speaker.

Title:

I think the work would benefit from the title that contains the main conclusion of the study (should be derived from the conclusion). Please modify the title.

Abstract:

- The abstract must illustrate the used methods and the most prevalent results (give more hints about methods and results). Besides, rephrase the main conclusion of your findings.

Introduction:

-Give a hint about different infections caused by E. coli and K. pneumonia, their virulence factors, and the mechanism of disease occurrence.

- The authors should illustrate the public health importance concerning the emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacterial pathogens that reflecting the necessity of new potent and safe antimicrobial agents. Several studies proved the widespread MDR- bacterial pathogens;

Authors could add the following paragraph:

Multidrug resistance has been increased all over the world that is considered a public health threat. Several recent investigations reported the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens from different origins including humans, poultry, cattle, and fish that increase the need for routine application of the antimicrobial susceptibility testing to detect the antibiotic of choice as well as the screening of the emerging MDR strains. You should cite the following valuable studies:

PMID: 33177849

1-PMID: 32497922

2-PMID:33061472

3-PMID: 33947875

4-PMID: 32472209

5-PMID: 32994450

6-PMID: 33188216

7-PMID: 32235800

-Rephrase the aim of the work to be clear and better sound.

Material and methods

- Bacterial isolation and identification:

•Explain in detail the methods of the bacterial isolation and identification (add specific references, the used media: add the company and country, the used biochemical reactions). The authors are advised to perform the conventional methods of bacterial isolation and identification as well as the Vitek-2. Besides, add more details about the Vitek identification system.

- Antimicrobial susceptibility testing:

•Illustrate the antimicrobial classes of the tested antimicrobial agents.

- PCR-based detection of the Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase genes (such as blaTEM, blaCTX-M, blaSHV, and bla-KPC…etc.) in the recovered isolated should be carried out for necessary.

- Add more details about the used program (SPSS) in the statistical analyses.

-Results:

-Illustrate the statistical analyses of the results presented in Tables 1-5.

-The subtitle: Bacteria isolates should be replaced by: Prevalence of E. coli and Klebsiella spp.

-Improve the presentation of your finding using illustrating figures.

-PCR-based detection of the Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase genes (such as blaTEM, blaCTX-M, blaSHV, and bla-KPC…etc.) in the recovered isolated should be carried out for necessary. Besides, the authors should add the PCR figures.

-Discussion:

- The authors are advised to illustrate the real impact of their findings without repetition of results.

-Remove all subtitles from the discussion section.

-Conclusion

- Should be rephrased to be sounded. A real conclusion should focus on the question or claim you articulated in your study, which resolution has been the main objective of your paper?

Reviewer #2: - The current study has a significant impact, but it needs a major revision:

- The manuscript should be revised for grammar mistakes.

- Please write the scientific names of all pathogens in italic form all over the manuscript.

-The title is broad, please modify the title.

- Add more details about the used methods and most prevalent results in the abstract.

-In the introduction: discuss the public health importance of the recovered bacterial pathogens and different infection caused by them.

-Improve the aim of work.

Methods:

-Discuss in details the methods of isolation and identification of the bacterial pathogens (by traditional methods and Vitek).

-Specific references should be added to all the used methods and techniques.

-Add the manufacturing company, city, and country for the used media and antimicrobial discs.

- The Extended spectrum beta-lactamase genes should be genetically detected using PCR.

-Add more details about the used software in the statistical analysis.

-Results:

- The Extended spectrum beta-lactamase genes should be genetically detected using PCR (support your findings with the PCR Figures).

-Where are the statistical analyses? (only used in Table 6).

-Discussion:

- Please improve. Delete all the subtitles.

-Please improve the main conclusion of the manuscript.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

[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.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 1;16(10):e0258117. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258117.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Sep 2021

Responses to the Comments from Reviewer #1

Comments: The current study is interesting; however, the authors should address the following comments to improve the quality of the manuscript: The manuscript should be revised for language editing and grammar mistakes by a native English speaker.

Response: Thank you for the comment and we have incorporated all your comments and suggestion in the revised manuscript accordingly. The manuscript is also reviewed for the English language.

Title

Comments: I think the work would benefit from the title that contains the main conclusion of the study (should be derived from the conclusion). Please modify the title.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion and the title is modified to “High prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae fecal carriage among children under five years in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia”.

Abstract

Comments: The abstract must illustrate the used methods and the most prevalent results (give more hints about methods and results). Besides, rephrase the main conclusion of your findings.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have made revisions accordingly.

Introduction

Comments: Give a hint about different infections caused by E. coli and K. pneumonia, their virulence factors, and the mechanism of disease occurrence. The authors should illustrate the public health importance concerning the emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacterial pathogens that reflecting the necessity of new potent and safe antimicrobial agents.

Several studies proved the widespread MDR- bacterial pathogens; Authors could add the following paragraph:

Multidrug resistance has been increased all over the world that is considered a public health threat. Several recent investigations reported the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens from different origins including humans, poultry, cattle, and fish that increase the need for routine application of the antimicrobial susceptibility testing to detect the antibiotic of choice as well as the screening of the emerging MDR strains. You should cite the following valuable studies:

PMID: 33177849

1-PMID: 32497922

2-PMID:33061472

3-PMID: 33947875

4-PMID: 32472209

5-PMID: 32994450

6-PMID: 33188216

7-PMID: 32235800

-Rephrase the aim of the work to be clear and better sound.

Response: Thank you for the valuable comment and included in the revised manuscript.

Material and methods

Comments: Bacterial isolation and identification: Explain in detail the methods of bacterial isolation and identification (add specific references, the used media: add the company and country, the used biochemical reactions). The authors are advised to perform the conventional methods of bacterial isolation and identification as well as the Vitek-2. Besides, add more details about the Vitek identification system.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: Illustrate the antimicrobial classes of the tested antimicrobial agents.

PCR-based detection of the Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase genes (such as blaTEM, blaCTX-M, blaSHV, and bla-KPC…etc.) in the recovered isolated should be carried out for necessary.

Add more details about the used program (SPSS) in the statistical analyses.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have made revisions for all comments accordingly. Concerning PCR-based detection of ESBL genes, it would have been interesting if we could perform it. However, the molecular characterization of ESBL encoding genes was not conducted due to our laboratory ( even though it is a national reference lab) has no facility for molecular analysis. Our study only detected ESBL production phenotypically and is mentioned under limitation.

Results

Comments: Illustrate the statistical analyses of the results presented in Tables 1-5.

-The subtitle: Bacteria isolates should be replaced by: Prevalence of E. coli and Klebsiella spp.

-Improve the presentation of your finding using illustrating figures.

-PCR-based detection of the Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase genes (such as blaTEM, blaCTX-M, blaSHV, and bla-KPC…etc.) in the recovered isolated should be carried out for necessary. Besides, the authors should add the PCR figures.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have made revisions for all comments accordingly. Concerning presenting the finding by figures, the figure is better to interpreted data easily than a table. However, in our case, we found that it is much easier to put our data in tables than figures. The PCR-based detection of ESBL genes was not performed due to our laboratory has no facility for molecular analysis we have only done phenotypic detection of ESBL and this is mentioned under limitation.

Discussion

Comments: The authors are advised to illustrate the real impact of their findings without repetition of results. Remove all subtitles from the discussion section.

Response: Thank you for the comment. The subtitles are removed and the discussion is improved in the revised manuscript.

Conclusion

Comments: Should be rephrased to be sounded. A real conclusion should focus on the question or claim you articulated in your study, which resolution has been the main objective of your paper?

Response: Thank you for the comment and is improved in the revised manuscript.

Responses to the Comments from Reviewer #2

Comments: The current study has a significant impact, but it needs a major revision: The manuscript should be revised for grammar mistakes. Please write the scientific names of all pathogens in italic form all over the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for the comment and we have incorporated all your comments and suggestion in the revised manuscript accordingly. The manuscript is also reviewed for the English language. In addition, the scientific names of all pathogens have been written in italic form all over the revised manuscript.

Title

Comments: The title is broad, please modify the title.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion and the title is modified to “High prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae fecal carriage among children under five years in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia”.

Abstract

Comments: Add more details about the used methods and most prevalent results in the abstract.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have made revisions accordingly.

Introduction

Comments: In the introduction: discuss the public health importance of the recovered bacterial pathogens and different infections caused by them. Improve the aim of work.

Response: Thank you for the valuable comment and is included in the revised manuscript.

Material and methods

Comments: Discuss in detail the methods of isolation and identification of the bacterial pathogens (by traditional methods and Vitek).

- Specific references should be added to all the used methods and techniques.

-Add the manufacturing company, city, and country for the used media and antimicrobial discs.

-The Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase genes should be genetically detected using PCR.

-Add more details about the used software in the statistical analysis.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have made revisions for all comments accordingly. Concerning PCR-based detection of ESBL genes, it would have been interesting if we could perform it. However, the molecular characterization of ESBL encoding genes was not conducted due to our laboratory ( even though it is a national reference lab) has no facility for molecular analysis. Our study only detected ESBL production phenotypically and is mentioned under limitation.

Results

Comments: The Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase genes should be genetically detected using PCR (support your findings with the PCR Figures).

-Where are the statistical analyses? (Only used in Table 6).

Response: Thank you for the comment. Our study only detected ESBL production phenotypically due to our laboratory has no facility for molecular analysis and is mentioned under limitation.

We used simple frequency to describe the study population's socio-demographic, clinical condition, and prevalence of ESBL fecal carriage. Besides, we tried to explore the possible risk factors (like antibiotic usage, hospital visit, and admission, previous surgery) associated with ESBL fecal carriage (we got this information from previous studies) and tried to look in our study and summarized in Table 6.

Discussion

Comment:s Please improve. Delete all the subtitles.

Response: Thank you for the comment. The subtitles are removed and the discussion is improved in the revised manuscript.

Conclusion

Comment: Please improve the main conclusion of the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for the comment and is improved in the revised manuscript.

Additional clarifications

Comment: Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concern:

Please explain

i) why written consent was not obtained,

ii) how you documented participant consent, and

iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

Response: Thank you for the comment. The ethics statement has been amended in regards to participant consent from verbal to written informed consent in the revised manuscript. It was mistakenly written as verbal informed consent.

In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Abdelazeem Mohamed Algammal

20 Sep 2021

High prevalence of  extended spectrum beta -lactamase producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae fecal carriage among children under five years in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

PONE-D-21-25316R1

Dear Dr. Tola,

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,

Abdelazeem Mohamed Algammal, Prof, Ph.D

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: The authors have carried out a significant changes to the manuscript. They have addressed all the suggested corrections and comments. Really, it's an interesting study that has a significant impact. Now, the manuscript could be accepted.

Congratulations.

**********

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: No

Acceptance letter

Abdelazeem Mohamed Algammal

24 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-25316R1

High prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae fecal carriage among children under five years in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.  

Dear Dr. Tola:

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

Professor Abdelazeem Mohamed Algammal

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: Responses to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data used to support the findings of this study are included in this manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES