Skip Navigation


JAC Advance Access originally published online on June 26, 2007
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2007 60(2):377-384; doi:10.1093/jac/dkm197
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
60/2/377    most recent
dkm197v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Duerink, D. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Duerink, D. O.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Determinants of carriage of resistant Escherichia coli in the Indonesian population inside and outside hospitals

D. Offra Duerink1,*, Endang S. Lestari2, Usman Hadi3, Nico J. D. Nagelkerke4, Juliëtte A. Severin5, Henri A. Verbrugh5, Monique Keuter6, Inge C. Gyssens5, Peterhans J. van den Broek on behalf of the study group ‘Antimicrobial Resistance in Indonesia: Prevalence and Prevention’ (AMRIN)1,{dagger}

1 Department of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands 2 Department of Clinical Microbiology, Dr Kariadi Hospital—School of Medicine, Diponegoro University, Jalan Dr Soetomo 16-18, Semarang 50231, Indonesia 3 Department of Internal Medicine, Dr Soetomo Hospital—School of Medicine, Airlangga University, Jalan Prof. Dr Moestopo 6-8, Surabaya 60132, Indonesia 4 Department of Community Medicine, United Arab Emirates University, PO Box 17666, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates 5 Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, ‘s Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands 6 Department of Internal Medicine, Nijmegen University Centre for Infectious Diseases International Health (NUCI-IH), Geert Grooteplein 10, 456, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands

* Corresponding author. Tel: +31-71-5262613; Fax: +31-71-5266758; E-mail: d.o.duerink{at}lumc.nl

Received 19 February 2007; returned 11 March 2007; revised 1 May 2007; accepted 7 May 2007


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Transparency declarations
 Supplementary data
 References
 
Objectives: Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide healthcare problem exacerbated by antibiotic use and transmission of resistant bacteria. Not much is known about resistance in commensal flora and about determinants for resistance in Indonesia. This study analysed recent antibiotic use as well as demographic, socioeconomic, disease-related and healthcare-related determinants of rectal carriage of resistant Escherichia coli in the community and in hospitals in Indonesia.

Methods: Carriers of susceptible E. coli were compared with carriers of E. coli with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine which variables were associated with carriage of resistant E. coli. Individuals in the community with varying levels of contact with healthcare institutions and hospitalized patients were analysed as separate populations.

Results and conclusions: Of 3275 individuals (community 2494, hospital 781), 54% carried resistant E. coli. Recent antibiotic use was the most important determinant of resistance in both populations [community: odds ratio (OR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.5–2.3; hospital: OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.6–3.9]. In the community, hospitalization (OR 2.4, 95% CI 2.0–3.0), diarrhoeal symptoms (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3–2.7) and age under 16 years (adults: OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3–0.5) were associated with carriage of resistant E. coli. For hospitalized patients, having no health insurance was associated with less resistance (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4–0.9) and differences were observed between hospitals (Semarang: OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5–3.3) and departments (Paediatrics: OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.7–10.7). Further research is needed to investigate whether transmission is responsible for these differences.

Keywords: antibacterial agents , drug resistance , risk factors


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Transparency declarations
 Supplementary data
 References
 
Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide healthcare problem that threatens the progress in healthcare in developing countries.1,2 Limited published data are available on antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli in the Far East and these primarily concern clinical isolates.3–14 Resistance data from Indonesia are mostly limited to pathogens of diarrhoeal disease.10,12,13,15–19 The use of antibiotics is the most important determinant for emergence of resistant micro-organisms.20,21 Little is known about other determinants for carriage of resistant bacteria, such as demographic22 and socioeconomic23,24 factors.

The study group ‘Antimicrobial Resistance in Indonesia: Prevalence and Prevention’ (AMRIN) investigated rectal carriage of resistant bacteria among inhabitants of the island of Java. Rectal swabs of individuals in the community and the hospital were cultured for the presence of E. coli, a commensal intestinal bacterium frequently used as an indicator of antibiotic resistance in populations.25 Antibiotic susceptibility testing of the E. coli isolates was conducted for six antibiotics commonly used in Indonesia: ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime, gentamicin, chloramphenicol, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole.

The aim of the present study is to investigate whether recent antibiotic use as well as demographic, socioeconomic, healthcare-related and disease-related variables are risk factors for carriage of resistant E. coli. We hypothesized that recent antibiotic use would be associated with carriage of resistant E. coli, and that due to transmission of resistant bacteria differences would be found between nursing wards, departments and hospitals.


   Materials and methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
Results
 Discussion
 Transparency declarations
 Supplementary data
 References
 
Two government hospitals, the Dr Soetomo hospital in Surabaya, East Java, and the Dr Kariadi hospital in Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia, as well as three primary healthcentres (PHC, two in Surabaya and one in Semarang) were selected for this study. The hospital in Surabaya has ~60 000 and that in Semarang 26 000 admissions per year. The Medical Ethics Committees of the hospitals approved of the study protocol [ethical clearance No/Panke.KKE/2001 (Surabaya) and 11/EC/FK/RSDK/2001 (Semarang)]. Patients upon admission to hospital (group A), healthy family members accompanying them (group B), people visiting a primary healthcentre for consultation or vaccination (group C) and patients upon discharge after hospitalization for 5 days or more (group D) were enrolled after giving informed consent. The aim was to include 4000 individuals; 500 individuals per group per city, whereby each department was equally represented.

For the purpose of analysis, individuals who had not been hospitalized (groups A, B and C) were combined into a community population, whereas patients upon discharge from hospital (group D) formed the hospital population.

Group A patients were included within the first 24 h of admission. Persons in group B were included on admission of group A patients at a rate of one contact per patient. Patients in group C were included on specific study days twice weekly in Surabaya and once weekly in Semarang. Individuals were excluded from the study if they had been transferred from another hospital, if they were not accompanied by a family member (group A), or if they had been admitted to a hospital during the previous three months (groups A, B and C).

Demographic and socioeconomic data and, for community patients, data on health complaints and consumption of antibiotics in the month preceding the study were collected by semi-structured interviews, performed by pairs of trained Indonesian and Dutch data collectors (researchers, residents and medical students). For group A, diagnosis on admission, and for group D, data on antibiotic consumption during hospitalization and diagnosis on discharge were collected from medical records. Subjects for whom susceptibility testing and data on antibiotic consumption were available were included in the analyses.

Variables

Recent antibiotic use was defined in accordance with the nomenclature and subcategory definitions of the WHO ATC Classification code, subgroup antibacterials for systemic use.26 We analysed any antibiotic use, i.e. whether or not a patient took any antibiotic in the preceding month or during hospitalization; use of an antibiotic from a specific ATC class, combined or not combined with an antibiotic from a different class; and single antibiotic use, i.e. use of an antibiotic from a specific ATC class not combined with an antibiotic from a different class. Combined use was defined as either simultaneous or successive use of antibiotics from different ATC classes.

Origin (Surabaya or Semarang), sex, age (newborn to 16 years of age versus over 16 years of age in accordance with the age limit for the Departments of Paediatrics, and children of less than two years old versus people of more than two years of age in accordance with approximate pre- and post-weaning periods), ethnicity and living area (urban or rural) were the selected demographic variables. Health insurance, income (below or above poverty line),27 education (primary school not completed versus primary school education and higher), employment and crowding (one through eight versus nine or more individuals sharing a household) were the chosen socioeconomic variables. Group, Department (Internal Medicine, Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynaecology or Paediatrics), nursing ward (sub-department), nursing class (I, II or III, with class I being the most expensive class) and length of stay in hospital (5 through 8 versus 9 days or more) were studied as healthcare-related variables. Only the last ward of admission was recorded; transfers were not recorded. For community patients, clinical signs and symptoms in the month preceding the study (fever, diarrhoea, respiratory symptoms, other symptoms or no symptoms) were the disease-related variables and for patients upon admission and discharge whether or not an infection was diagnosed.

Selection of strains and susceptibility testing

Rectal samples were taken with sterile cotton-tipped swabs, which were transported to the laboratory in Amies transport medium (Copan, Brescia, Italy) in closed boxes at ambient temperature. They were cultured within 24 h on CHROMagar Orientation (Becton–Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany) for the isolation of E. coli.28 From each culture, two colonies representing the dominantly growing bacterium were further analysed. Pink colonies were assumed to be E. coli and used for susceptibility testing without additional determination. From the original 3995 isolates, almost 400 were confirmed by Vitek 2 (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France).11 Previously published validation of identification of E. coli by CHROMagar yielded a positive predictive value of 0.93, which is comparable to our results.28

Susceptibility testing was performed by the CLSI (formerly the NCCLS)-based disc diffusion method on Mueller–Hinton agar using discs containing ampicillin (10 µg), chloramphenicol (30 µg), gentamicin (10 µg), cefotaxime (30 µg), ciprofloxacin (5 µg) and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (1.25/23.75 µg).29 The performance of the susceptibility testing was monitored twice weekly with the quality control strain E. coli ATCC 25922. Isolates that were susceptible or intermediately susceptible according to the CLSI criteria were categorized as susceptible.

For the purpose of analysis, a maximum of one E. coli isolate per enrolled individual, namely the first E. coli isolate in the study database, was included in the analysis.

Analysis

Individuals carrying resistant strains were compared with individuals carrying bacteria susceptible to all tested antibiotics. Resistance as an outcome variable for each of the different antibiotics was explored in two different ways:

  1. Resistance of E. coli to any of the tested antibiotics, irrespective of whether this was resistance to the specific antibiotic considered, or whether the resistance to the antibiotic of interest was part of a pattern of resistance to multiple antibiotics, was taken as the outcome (dependent) variable, and possible determinants for this variable identified.
  2. Carriage of E. coli resistant to the specific antibiotic of interest was taken as the outcome variable, and determinants for this outcome variable identified. This approach was only pursued when at least 100 isolates with the relevant resistance pattern were available.
To identify determinants for any of these outcome variables, logistic regression analysis with backward selection of variables (statistical package SPSS, version 12.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used.

In view of the large number of inter-related candidate determinants, some of which were sparse (i.e. most individuals had the same value for this variable), each of the analyses was performed using a two-step procedure. First, candidate variables were selected by performing logistic regression on four partially overlapping sets of co-variables [Table S1, available as Supplementary data at JAC Online (http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/)]:

  1. any antibiotic use, combined with all demographic, socioeconomic, disease-related and healthcare-related determinants,
  2. demographic determinants,
  3. socioeconomic determinants,
  4. disease-related and healthcare-related determinants (without nursing wards).
Then, a ‘final’ logistic regression analysis was performed with all variables that were significantly associated with antibiotic resistance in any of these four analyses. The variables that were significantly associated with resistance in this final analysis were presumed to be independently associated (in the sense that the association was not caused by confounding) with resistance. This approach of selecting candidate variables was preferred over the usual strategy of picking variables univariately significantly associated with the outcome variable, as in our experience that strategy sometimes misses variables that are only significantly associated with the outcome variable in conjunction with other variables. Use of antibiotics from specific antibiotic classes and single use of specific antibiotic classes were analysed as separate sets of variables. When logistic regression could not be performed because of sparse data, variables with very small dispersion were excluded from the analyses.

Possible clustering of susceptibility patterns between groups A and B was investigated by comparing whether included pairs of individuals had similar susceptibility patterns and calculating Pearson's correlation coefficient.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
Discussion
 Transparency declarations
 Supplementary data
 References
 
Between July and October 2001 in Surabaya and January and May 2002 in Semarang, 3995 subjects were included. In 3275 individuals, culture and susceptibility data on E. coli and antibiotic use data were complete. In 720 patients, data were not suitable for analysis: 180 because there was no growth on the agar plate, 385 because no pink colonies were present in the culture and 155 because of missing susceptibility data (Figure 1). No growth was observed significantly more frequently in Semarang (8%) than in Surabaya (1%, P < 0.001). In Surabaya, no significant differences were observed between the groups, whereas in Semarang, the proportion with no growth varied from 5% in group B to 13% in group D (P < 0.001). The proportion of pink colonies did not differ significantly between Surabaya and Semarang, or between the groups in Surabaya, but varied between 80% in group D and 92% in group B (P < 0.001) in Semarang. Missing or incomplete susceptibility data occurred more frequently in Surabaya (8%) than in Semarang (1%, P < 0.001). In Semarang, no significant differences were observed between the groups, whereas in Surabaya, the proportion with missing susceptibility data varied from 1% in group B to 11% in group C (P < 0.001).


Figure 1
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 1. Flow chart with numbers of enrolled and analysed subjects. Reasons for exclusion of enrolled subjects from analysis: NG, no growth on agar plate; NP, no pink colonies on agar plate; NS, no complete susceptibility data.

 
No significant differences in demographic, socioeconomic, disease-related and healthcare-related variables were observed between the community and hospital populations, with the exception of age (Table 1). Additional information regarding population characteristics can be found in Table S2 [available as Supplementary data at JAC Online (http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/)] for the community and in Table S3 [available as Supplementary data at JAC Online (http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/)] for the hospital.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Demographic characteristics of community and hospital populations

 
Antimicrobial resistance

Of the 3275 E. coli strains, 1552 (47%) were susceptible to all tested antibiotics, 585 (18%) to a single antibiotic and 1138 (35%) to two or more antibiotics (Table 2). In 69 strains (data not shown in Table 2), resistance patterns were observed that occurred less than eight times.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Resistance patterns

 
In the community, ampicillin resistance was observed most frequently (851 isolates, 34%), followed by trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole resistance in 716 isolates (29%) and chloramphenicol resistance in 369 isolates (15%). Resistance to ciprofloxacin, gentamicin and cefotaxime occurred less than 100 times. Single ampicillin resistance was observed in 236 isolates (9%) and single trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole resistance in 162 isolates (6%), whereas single chloramphenicol, gentamicin and ciprofloxacin resistance were observed less than 100 times. Single cefotaxime resistance was not present in any of the isolates.

In hospitalized patients, ampicillin resistance was also observed most frequently (570 isolates, 73%), followed by trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole resistance in 434 isolates (56%), chloramphenicol resistance in 334 isolates (43%), ciprofloxacin resistance in 173 isolates (22%) and gentamicin resistance in 141 isolates (18%). Cefotaxime resistance was observed less than 100 times. In hospitalized patients, single resistance was observed for less than 100 subjects for all tested antibiotics and single cefotaxime resistance was not present in any of the isolates.

Antibiotic use

Antibiotic use results are summarized in Table 3. In the community (2494 individuals), 367 antibiotic courses were prescribed in the month preceding the study, while for 781 hospitalized individuals, 1084 antibiotic courses were prescribed. Penicillins ranked first and accounted for 71% of antibiotic use in the community and 40% in hospitals. In the community tetracyclines (10%), sulphonamides (7%) and amphenicols (7%) were the other frequently used antibiotics. In the community 93% of antibiotic use concerned the use of a single antibiotic. In the 2125 individuals in the community who received no antibiotic treatment, the carriage rate of multiple resistances (resistance to more than one antibiotic) was 24%, in the 347 patients receiving one antibiotic 38% and in the 22 patients receiving more than one antibiotic 46%.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Total and single antibiotic use in community and hospital populations

 
In hospitalized patients, cephalosporins (22%) and quinolones (10%) ranked second and third, respectively. Single antibiotic use was observed in 33% of cases. In the 127 hospitalized patients who received no antibiotic treatment, the carriage rate of multiple resistances was 33%, in the 159 patients receiving one antibiotic 64% and in the 495 patients receiving more than one antibiotic 71%.

Determinants of resistance in the community (groups A, B and C)

Analysis of determinants for resistance in the community was performed with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics, single ampicillin resistance and single trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole resistance, because more than 100 cases were available for these resistance groups.

Any antibiotic use was associated with carriage of E. coli with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics [odds ratio (OR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.5–2.3], single ampicillin resistance (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1–2.3) and single trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole resistance (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2–2.8). Prior use of penicillins was associated with carriage of E. coli resistant to any of the tested antibiotics (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4–2.4) and single ampicillin resistance (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2–2.7). Prior use of amphenicols was associated with carriage of E. coli resistant to any of the tested antibiotics (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3–7.5). Prior use of sulphonamides was associated with carriage of E. coli resistant to any of the tested antibiotics (OR 5.5, 95% CI 2.1–14.8) and single trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole resistance (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.0–28.0).

Logistic regression analysis performed with only single antibiotic use did not change the findings significantly; in most cases, the same antibiotics were associated with resistance when used as a single antibiotic drug or combined with other antibiotics (data not shown).

Socioeconomic variables were not associated with carriage of resistant E. coli in the community. Neither were demographic variables, except for age: adults were less likely to be carriers of E. coli with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3–0.5) and single ampicillin resistance (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4–0.9) than children. The same analysis with children of less than 2 years old versus people of more than 2 years of age yielded similar results (data not shown). Admission to hospital (group A) was associated with carriage of E. coli resistant to any of the tested antibiotics (OR 2.4, 95% CI 2.0–3.0) and single ampicillin resistance (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.9–4.0, group B = reference category). Susceptibility patterns of groups A and B did not correlate, although individuals from these groups were included as pairs (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.014). Diarrhoea was associated with carriage of E. coli resistant to any of the tested antibiotics (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3–2.7).

Determinants of resistance in hospitalized patients (group D)

Analysis of determinants for resistance in hospitalized patients was only performed with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics, because single resistance was observed for less than 100 subjects for all tested antibiotics.

The use of any antibiotic (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.6–3.9), penicillins (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.2–4.8), amphenicols (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.2–12.8), quinolones (OR 6.8, 95% CI 3.0–15.1) and metronidazole (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.1–7.6) was associated with carriage of E. coli with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics.

Logistic regression analysis with only single antibiotic use changed the findings significantly for carriage of E. coli with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics: any (single or combined) cephalosporin use was not associated with resistance, but single cephalosporin use was associated with less carriage of E. coli with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1–0.5). Single use of other antibiotics was not associated with carriage of E. coli with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics (data not shown).

Having no health insurance was associated with less carriage of E. coli with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4–0.9). Discharge from the hospital in Semarang was associated with carriage of E. coli with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5–3.3). Discharge from the Department of Paediatrics (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.7–10.7), rather than from Internal Medicine (reference category) was associated with carriage of E. coli with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics. Significant differences were observed between several individual nursing wards, but for most wards the numbers of patients were too small to draw any conclusions from these data (data not shown).


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
Transparency declarations
 Supplementary data
 References
 
This study shows that antibiotic use is the most important albeit not the only determinant of carriage of resistant E. coli. In the non-hospitalized population, age under 17 and diarrhoea were independent determinants. Individuals screened upon admission to hospital carried resistant E. coli more often than patients who visited a PHC and healthy relatives who accompanied patients at admission to hospital. In hospitalized patients screened upon discharge, having health insurance was associated with carriage of resistant E. coli, as were several healthcare-related determinants: hospitalization in Semarang and admission to the Gynaecology and Obstetrics or Paediatric Departments.

In concordance with our hypothesis, we observed that, for most antibiotic classes, most resistance was present in the group most exposed to antibiotics and least resistance in the group least exposed to antibiotics. In the community, direct associations were observed between the use of specific antibiotics and resistance to those antibiotics, namely between ß-lactam antibiotics and ampicillin resistance and sulphonamide use and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole resistance. Here, the majority of antibiotic therapy consisted of single therapy.

For hospitalized patients, two-thirds of antibiotic treatments were combined therapies. The use of penicillins, amphenicols, quinolones and metronidazole was associated with resistance to any of the tested antibiotics. Epidemiologically one can assume that it represents a greater exposure to antibiotics, since most patients took more than one antibiotic. Indeed there was a high rate of multiple resistances. In the subset of hospitalized patients treated with a single antibiotic, single use of a cephalosporin was associated with less resistance to any of the tested antibiotics. It is unlikely that cephalosporins actually protect against resistance. In a hospital population, where 84% of the patients took antibiotics during admission, single ß-lactam use might reflect a relatively healthy population with a relatively low susceptibility to infections and exposed to relatively low quantities of antibiotics (e.g. as prophylaxis).

Several other determinants, although independent from antibiotic use in the analysis, can still be explained by a relatively high exposure to antibiotics. Health insurance increased the probability of carriage of resistant E. coli. This is most likely, at least partly, due to the different consumption pattern of antibiotics. Individuals with health insurance consumed antibiotics more frequently, took longer antibiotic courses and different antibiotic classes, namely cephalosporins, macrolides and quinolones, than people without health insurance.

In the community, more children than adults carried resistant E. coli. Several factors may have contributed to carriage of resistant E. coli in children. Young children generally tend to receive antibiotics more frequently than adults.30 The AMRIN study confirmed that more children than adults received antibiotics. Apart from antibiotic use, children might acquire resistant bacteria more easily than adults, because of their greater exposure through unhygienic behaviour.

With regard to clinical signs and symptoms, we observed that individuals who reported diarrhoea had a higher probability of carriage of resistant E. coli than individuals with other or no complaints. We must interpret these data carefully, since diarrhoea often occurs during antibiotic use and patients may have incorrectly reported diarrhoea as a symptom instead of an adverse reaction to an antibiotic.

Our results indicate that the hospital, the department and the nursing ward to which a patient is admitted are determinants of carriage of resistant E. coli in hospitalized patients. In hospitals, transmission of resistant bacteria contributes to the problem of antibiotic resistance, probably much more so than in the community.31,32 Further investigations are needed to show whether transmission of resistant strains of E. coli explains the differences between the two hospitals, the departments and the wards.

There are several limitations to the study. Antibiotic use in the community was self-reported. We may have missed determinants for carriage of resistant E. coli, because, since quantitative analysis was not feasible with the amount of variables analysed, we dichotomized the variables for the purpose of analysis. The design of the study is not useful for making statements about mechanisms causing resistance, although it is helpful for making recommendations for further research. Finally, care must be taken in generalization of our results to the general Javanese population, as the majority of participants were in contact with healthcare institutions, in varying levels. The community population consisted of several subgroups, with group B being most representative of the general Javanese population. The hospital population was approximately representative of urban Javanese government hospitals, with a tendency towards longer than average hospital admissions. However, the design proved useful to show that the more intensively individuals are in contact with healthcare institutions, the more prone they are to carriage of resistant E. coli.

In conclusion, antibiotic use was the most important determinant for carriage of resistant E. coli in our study. Most antibiotic classes were associated with carriage of resistant E. coli. An aberrant antibiotic consumption pattern of people with health insurance may explain the role of health insurance. Children, regardless of more frequent antibiotic use, were at greater risk of carriage of resistant E. coli than adults, perhaps because of the greater exposure to (resistant) microorganisms. Differences between and within hospitals point to transmission of resistant bacteria within hospitals.


   Transparency declarations
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Transparency declarations
Supplementary data
 References
 
None to declare.


   Supplementary data
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Transparency declarations
 Supplementary data
References
 
Tables S1, S2 and S3 are available as Supplementary data at JAC Online (http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/).


   Footnotes
 
{dagger} Members of the AMRIN study group are listed in the Acknowledgements section. Back


   Acknowledgements
 
We thank the deans of the participating medical faculties and the directors of participating hospitals, the directors of the participating PHC and the heads of the participating departments, who have facilitated our work in these hospitals. We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the data collectors: Diana Huis in ‘t Veld, Suzanne Werter, Ka-Chun Cheung, Eko Budi Santoso, Hadi Susatyo, Arwin Achyar, Sony Wibisono, Bramantono, Vera, Yenni Suryaningtyas, Upik Handayani, Krisma Irmajanti, Purnomo Hadi, Rianne de Jong and Rozemarijn van der Meulen, and all those who helped us with the pilot study and data registration. We also thank Emile F. Schippers for his very useful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Science Programme Indonesia, the Netherlands (project 99-MED-03).

Members of the AMRIN study group:

Dr Soetomo Hospital—School of Medicine Airlangga University Surabaya, Indonesia: Prof. Widjoseno Gardjito, M.D.; Erni P. Kolopaking, MPPM; Prof. Karjadi Wirjoatmodjo, M.D.; Prof. Djoko Roeshadi, M.D., Ph.D.; Prof. Eddy Suwandojo, M.D.; Hari Parathon, M.D.; Usman Hadi, M.D.; Nun Zairina, Hosp. Pharm.; Endang Isbandiati, M.D., Ph.D.; Kartuti Deborah, M.D.; K. Kuntaman, M.D., Ph.D.; Ni Made Mertaniasih, M.D., Ph.D; Marijam Poerwanta, M.Sc.

Dr Kariadi Hospital—School of Medicine Diponegoro University Semarang, Indonesia: Prof. Ariawan Soejoenoes, M.D.; Budi Riyanto, M.D.; Hendro Wahjono, M.D., Ph.D.; Musrichan Adhisaputro, M.D.; Bambang Triwara, Pharm.D.; Johnny Syoeib, M.D.; Endang Sri Lestari, M.D.; Bambang Wibowo, M.D.; Muchlis AU Sofro, M.D.; H. Farida, M.D., M.Sc.; M.M. Hapsari, M.D.; Tri Laksana Nugraha, M.D., M.Sc.

Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands: Prof. P.J. van den Broek, M.D., Ph.D.; D.O. Duerink, M.D., M.A.

Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Prof. H.A. Verbrugh, M.D., Ph.D.; I.C. Gyssens, M.D., Ph.D.

Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands: M. Keuter, M.D., Ph.D.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Transparency declarations
 Supplementary data
 References
 
1 Shears P. Antibiotic resistance in the tropics. Epidemiology and surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in the tropics. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg (2001) 95:127–30.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

2 Okeke IN, Klugman KP, Bhutta ZA, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in developing countries. Part II: strategies for containment. Lancet Infect Dis (2005) 5:568–80.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

3 McDonald LC, Chen FJ, Lo HJ, et al. Emergence of reduced susceptibility and resistance to fluoroquinolones in Escherichia coli in Taiwan and contributions of distinct selective pressures. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (2001) 45:3084–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4 Bell JM, Turnidge JD, Jones RN. Prevalence of extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacter cloacae in the Asia-Pacific region: results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1998 to 2001. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (2003) 47:3989–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

5 Chong Y, Lee K, Park YJ, et al. Korean Nationwide Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance of bacteria in 1997. Yonsei Med J (1998) 39:569–77.[Web of Science][Medline]

6 Goldmann DA, Huskins WC. Control of nosocomial antimicrobial-resistant bacteria: a strategic priority for hospitals worldwide. Clin Infect Dis (1997) 24(Suppl 1):S139–45.[Web of Science][Medline]

7 Hsueh PR, Liu CY, Luh KT. Current status of antimicrobial resistance in Taiwan. Emerg Infect Dis (2002) 8:132–7.[Web of Science][Medline]

8 Hsueh PR, Chen ML, Sun CC, et al. Antimicrobial drug resistance in pathogens causing nosocomial infections at a university hospital in Taiwan, 1981–1999. Emerg Infect Dis (2002) 8:63–8.[Web of Science][Medline]

9 Kim WJ, Park SC. Bacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents: an overview from Korea. Yonsei Med J (1998) 39:488–94.[Web of Science][Medline]

10 Oyofo BA, Lesmana M, Subekti D, et al. Surveillance of bacterial pathogens of diarrhea disease in Indonesia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis (2002) 44:227–34.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

11 Kuntaman K, Lestari ES, Severin JA, et al. Fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli Indonesia. Emerg Infect Dis (2005) 11:1363–9.[Web of Science][Medline]

12 Subekti DS, Lesmana M, Tjaniadi P, et al. Prevalence of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) in hospitalized acute diarrhea patients in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis (2003) 47:399–405.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

13 Tjaniadi P, Lesmana M, Subekti D, et al. Antimicrobial resistance of bacterial pathogens associated with diarrheal patients in Indonesia. Am J Trop Med Hyg (2003) 68:666–70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

14 Sheng WH, Chen YC, Wang JT, et al. Emerging fluoroquinolone-resistance for common clinically important gram-negative bacteria in Taiwan. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis (2002) 43:141–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

15 Lewis MT, Biedenbach DJ, Jones RN. In vitro evaluation of cefepime and other broad-spectrum ß-lactams against bacteria from Indonesian medical centers. The Indonesia Antimicrobial Resistance Study Group. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis (1999) 35:285–90.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

16 Agtini MD, Soeharno R, Lesmana M, et al. The burden of diarrhoea, shigellosis, and cholera in North Jakarta, Indonesia: findings from 24 months surveillance. BMC Infect Dis (2005) 5:89.[CrossRef][Medline]

17 Lesmana M, Subekti DS, Tjaniadi P, et al. Spectrum of vibrio species associated with acute diarrhea in North Jakarta, Indonesia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis (2002) 43:91–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

18 Lesmana M, Subekti D, Simanjuntak CH, et al. Vibrio parahaemolyticus associated with cholera-like diarrhea among patients in North Jakarta, Indonesia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis (2001) 39:71–5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

19 Donegan EA, Wirawan DN, Muliawan P, et al. Fluoroquinolone-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Bali, Indonesia: 2004. Sex Transm Dis (2006) 33:625–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

20 Bronzwaer SL, Cars O, Buchholz U, et al. A European study on the relationship between antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance. Emerg Infect Dis (2002) 8:278–82.[Web of Science][Medline]

21 Farra A, Skoog G, Wallen L, et al. Antibiotic use and Escherichia coli resistance trends for quinolones and cotrimoxazole in Sweden. Scand J Infect Dis (2002) 34:449–55.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

22 Harbarth S, Samore MH. Antimicrobial resistance determinants and future control. Emerg Infect Dis (2005) 11:794–801.[Web of Science][Medline]

23 Jansson C, Franklin A, Skold O. Trimethoprim resistance arising in animal bacteria and transferring into human pathogens. J Infect Dis (1993) 167:785–7.[Web of Science][Medline]

24 Levy SB, FitzGerald GB, Macone AB. Changes in intestinal flora of farm personnel after introduction of a tetracycline-supplemented feed on a farm. N Engl J Med (1976) 295:583–8.[Abstract]

25 Bruinsma N, Stobberingh E, de Smet P, et al. Antibiotic use and the prevalence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria from healthy volunteers in the Dutch community. Infection (2003) 31:9–14.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

26 WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Anatomic Therapeutical Chemical (ATC) classification index with Defined Daily Doses (DDDs) (2003) 11 October 2006, date last accessed. http://www.whocc.no/atcddd.

27 BPS-Statistics Indonesia BAPPENAS, UNDP. Indonesia Human Development Report 2004 The Economics of Democracy Financing human development in Indonesia (2004).

28 Filius PM, van Netten D, Roovers PJ, et al. Comparative evaluation of three chromogenic agars for detection and rapid identification of aerobic Gram-negative bacteria in the normal intestinal microflora. Clin Microbiol Infect (2003) 9:912–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

29 National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disc Susceptibility: Approved Standard M2-A7 (2000) Villanova, PA, USA: NCCLS.

30 Okeke IN, Laxminarayan R, Bhutta ZA, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in developing countries. Part I: recent trends and current status. Lancet Infect Dis (2005) 5:481–93.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

31 Tenover FC, Hughes JM. The challenges of emerging infectious diseases. Development and spread of multiply-resistant bacterial pathogens. JAMA (1996) 275:300–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

32 Tenover FC, McGowan JE Jr. Reasons for the emergence of antibiotic resistance. Am J Med Sci (1996) 311:9–16.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
60/2/377    most recent
dkm197v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Duerink, D. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Duerink, D. O.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?