Skip to main content
Download PDF

Cefixime and cefixime-clavulanate for screening and confirmation of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in Escherichia coli

Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials volume 21, Article number: 20 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Detection of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBLs) depends on screening for resistance to certain cephalosporins, confirmation with selective ESBL inhibitors, and ESBL genes detection. New tests are required for accurate ESBL detection.

Aims

To test the ability of cefixime (CFM) and cefixime-amoxicillin/clavulanate (CFM-AMC) as a screening and confirmatory test for ESBL identification.

Methods

246 clinical isolates of Escherichia coli were tested by an ESBL screening test, a double-disk synergy test (DDST), a disk replacement test, the Vitek 2 ESBL test, and an ESBL genes test by PCR. CFM ESBL Screening was performed by disk diffusion, while CFM-AMC confirmation was performed by DDST and a disk replacement test.

Results

246 E. coli clinical isolates from two referral hospitals were collected over 2 years. The mean age ± standard deviation of patients was 43.8 ± 27.7 years and 76.8% were females. Resistance rates to penicillins, first, second, and third generation cephalosporins, and monobactams were very high at 97%, 84%, 100% and 97%, respectively. ESBL screening was positive in 81.3% of isolates, DDST was positive in 74.8%, disk replacement was positive in 79%, Vitek 2 ESBL test was positive in 67.3%, and ESBL genes were detected in 85.8% of isolates (CTX-M 75%, TEM 42.5%, SHV 4.6%). Compared to genotyping, screening with CFM achieved 87.7% sensitivity and 64.7% specificity. CFM-AMC DDST achieved 75.8% sensitivity and 75.4% specificity, and CFM-AMC disk replacement had 73% sensitivity and 70% specificity.

Conclusions

High prevalence of ESBLs was noted among E. coli isolates, dominated by CTX-M genotype. ESBL screening and confirmation using CFM and CFM-AMC is a new and accurate method for ESBLs detection.

Introduction

Escherichia coli is a Gram-negative, rod-shaped, lactose fermenting bacteria of the Enterobacteriaceae family [1]. It is responsible for a wide range of nosocomial and community-acquired infections [1]. Antibiotic resistance in E. coli has been increasing worldwide at an alarming rate [2]. Recently, E. coli strains resistant to all known antibiotics, including colistin, have been reported [3]. Epidemiological and molecular surveillance, the development of new diagnostic tests, and the discovery of novel therapies for resistant organisms has become a global priority [2, 3].

Antibiotic resistance in E. coli is mediated through different mechanisms, including β-lactamase production, porin loss, and efflux pumps [4]. β-lactamase enzymes include extended spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC β-lactamase, and carbapenemase [5]. ESBLs belong to class A and include over 400 enzymes capable of β-lactam drug inactivation. The affected drugs include- penicillins, broad-spectrum cephalosporins, and monobactams, but ESBLs have no effect on carbapenems and cephamycins [6]. ESBLs are generally inhibited by β-lactamase inhibitors like clavulanic acid [7]. SHV and TEM were the most common ESBL genes, but these have recently been surpassed by CTX-M [8].

Multiple large regional studies and recent reviews have highlighted the wide spread of ESBLs in the Middle East region [9,10,11]. Molecular analysis of ESBL-producing E. coli (ESBL-EC) in Jordan was performed in multiple studies with variable rates found [12,13,14,15].

Phenotypic confirmation of ESBL production is based on restored susceptibility to third generation cephalosporins with the addition of β-lactamase inhibitors [16, 17]. Phenotypic tests have high rates of errors and can be misleading, so, accordingly, resistance genes detection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) remains the gold standard [18, 19]. Furthermore, the high false positive rates reported for different phenotypic methods would have a negative impact on patient management [18, 19]. Development of a new and reliable phenotypic test for accurate detection of ESBL-producing strains is required. In a previous study, cefixime and amoxicillin/clavulanate was evaluated as an effective oral combination therapy for treating ESBL-EC, demonstrating a strong in vitro synergistic effect [20]. The aims of this study are an in-depth phenotypic and molecular characterization of β-Lactamase-producing E. coli isolates form multiple referral centers in Jordan and an evaluation of the ability of cefixime and amoxicillin/clavulanate to detect ESBL compared to standard and molecular methods.

Materials and methods

Patients and bacterial isolates

A total of 246 clinical isolates were included from patients with E. coli infections from Prince Hamzah Hospital and Islamic Hospital in Amman, Jordan, from October 2017 to December 2019. All isolates were collected after obtaining voluntary consent and ethical approval. Isolates were identified by standard microbiological procedures including culture on MacConkey agar, Gram stain, and manual biochemical tests, including citrate, indole, methyl-red, and voges-proskauer tests. Furthermore, species confirmation was carried out using the Vitek 2 compact system, using a Gram-negative identification card (BioMerieux, France).

Antibiotic susceptibility tests

Antibiotic susceptibility testing of isolates was performed using a standard disk diffusion test and the Vitek 2 compact system, using a Gram-negative antibiotic susceptibility card (AST GN69, BioMérieux, France). The following antibiotics were tested: ampicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, piperacillin/tazobactam, cephalosporins (cefazolin, cefuroxime, cefoxitin, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, cefixime, cefpodoxime, cefditoren, cefepime), carbapenems (imipenem, meropenem, ertapenem), monobactams (aztreonam), aminoglycosides (tigecycline, gentamicin, amikacin), quinolones and fluoroquinolones (nalidixic acid, norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin), folate pathway antagonists (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) and nitrofurans (nitrofurantoin). Zones of inhibition were interpreted according to the latest recommendations of CLSI [17].

Screening and confirmation tests for ESBL enzymes

An ESBL screening test was performed by disk diffusion, while ESBL confirmation was tested by double-disk synergy testing and disk replacement testing using cefpodoxime (10 µg), ceftazidime (30 µg), and cefotaxime (30 µg) with or without amoxicillin/clavulanate following CLSI criteria [17, 20]. Furthermore, an automated Vitek 2 ESBL confirmation test based on simultaneous assessment of the inhibitory effects of cefepime, cefotaxime, and ceftazidime, alone and in the presence of clavulanic acid, were applied (NO45 card, BioMérieux, France).

ESBL Screening with cefixime (5 µg) was performed using a disk diffusion method and interpreted according to the last recommendation by CSLI (resistant ˂ 15 mm, intermediate = 16–18 mm, sensitive ≥ 19 mm) [17], while cefixime confirmation with amoxicillin/clavulanate (20/ 10 µg) was detected using the double-disk synergy test at 20 mm distance and a disk replacement test similar to other recommended cephalosporins [20].

Molecular characterization

DNA extraction was performed following the procedure recommended by the manufacturer (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). ESBL encoding genes (CTX-M, TEM, and SHV) were detected by uniplex PCR using specific and universal primers and protocols described previously that detect different variants of each gene [21, 22]. All primers were obtained from University of Science and Technology, Jordan. PCR products were electrophoresed on 2% agarose gel stained with Ethidium bromide and visualized under UV transillumination.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 24. A P value less than or equal 0.5 was considered statistically significant. Descriptive analysis was used to calculate the prevalence of variables. The correlation between phenotypic and genotypic methods was tested by Chi-square or the Fisher exact test. The crosstab was used to calculate the sensitivity (the proportion of true positives tests out of all patients) and specificity (the percentage of true negatives out of all patients) of each method.

Results

Demographic characteristics of patients

A total of 246 E. coli clinical isolates were collected from two referral hospitals over 2 years including126 isolates from Islamic Hospital and 120 isolates from Prince Hamzah Hospital. The mean age of patients was 43.82 ± 27.7 years. One hundred eighty-two samples (76.8%) were obtained from females and 56 (23.5%) were obtained from males. Urine samples were the most common sources of isolates (87.2%), while most recruited patients were from the pediatric department (Table 1).

Table 1 Characterization of study participants with E. coli infections (n = 246)
Full size table

Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of isolates

Resistance rates to penicillins, first, second, and third generation cephalosporins, and monobactams were very high at 97%, 84%, 100% and 97%, respectively. A high resistant rate was observed for amoxicillin/clavulanate (79.6%) relative to the lower resistance rate for piperacillin/tazobactam (4.3%). Furthermore, a high resistance rate was noted for Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (72%), while the resistance rate for aminoglycosides was less than 50% and for quinolones, fluoroquinolones and nitrofurans was above 50%. Only 5% of isolates were resistant to carbapenems (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Antibiotic resistance pattern for E. coli isolates by disk diffusion method (n = 246)

Full size image

Phenotypic and genotypic detection of ESBLs

The ESBL screening test was positive in 81.3% (200/246) of E. coli isolates, including 81.5% that were resistant to cefotaxime (CTX), 80.2% that were resistant to cefpodoxime (CPD), and 76.5% that were resistant to ceftazidime (CAZ). ESBL confirmation by DDST was positive in 74.8% (181/242) of isolates. CTX yielded the highest synergistic activity with clavulanic acid (69.9%), followed by CAZ (58.3%) and CPD (56.4%). About 79% of isolates were positive by the disk replacement method, including 74.3% that were positive with CTX, 65% with CAZ, and 58.8% with CPD. 67.3% of isolates were positive by the Vitek 2 ESBL detection card (Table 2).

Table 2 Phenotypic tests for detection of E. coli-producing ESBL (n = 246)
Full size table

ESBL genes were detected in 85.8% of isolates. The CTX-M gene was predominantly detected in 75% of isolates, followed by the TEM gene in 42.5% of isolates and the SHV gene in 4.6% (Fig. 2). 32.5% of isolates had CTX-M and TEM genes simultaneously, while 3.3% of isolates had CTX-M and SHV genes and 1.6% had TEM and SHV genes. The three ESBL genes were detected simultaneously in only 1.2% of the isolates (Table 3). Prevalence and frequencies of ESBL genes among isolates were not affected by age, gender, sample types or sources, or hospital department (P > 0.05) (Data not shown).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Analysis of PCR product by gel electrophoresis stained with ethidium bromide showing a band at around 550 base pairs for CTX-M (A), a band at around 1080 base pairs for TEM gene (B), and a band at around 795 base pairs for SHV gene (C). MW: Molecular weight ladder of 100 bp, NC: Negative control, Empty: empty control, and PC: Positive control (CTX-M-, TEM- and SHV- positive-E. coli NCTC strains)

Full size image
Table 3 Distribution of ESBL among E. coli strains (n = 246)
Full size table

Performance of phenotypic tests for detection of ESBL genes

A molecular method was used as the reference method to evaluate the performance of phenotypic testing for ESBL detection. For the ESBL screening test, the overall sensitivity and specificity were 89.8% and 61.8%. The sensitivity and specificity for CPD were 88.7% and 63.6%, CTX were 90.1% and 62.1%, and CAZ were 84.5% and 64.7%. For the confirmation test, the overall sensitivity and specificity of DDST were 84.3% and 71.9%, including CTX-AMC at 78.3% and 72%, CAZ-AMC at 64.2% and 71.9%, and CPD-AMC at 63.5% and 75.8%, respectively. Disk replacement testing showed a higher sensitivity rate compared to DDST at 85.5% with a lower specificity rate at 64%. The sensitivity and specificity of the disk replacement method using CTX-AMC were 80.5% and 65.2%, CAZ-AMC were 70% and 70.4%, and CPD-AMC were 63.1% and 70.8%, respectively. Vitek 2 ESBL confirmation testing achieved the lowest sensitivity rate at 76.1% but the highest specificity rate at 100% compared to the other tests (Table 4).

Table 4 The sensitivity and specificity rates of four phenotypic ESBL detection methods compared to the reference method of genotyping
Full size table

CFM for screening and confirmation of ESBL phenotype

Of the total number of isolates, 75.2, 3.7 and 21.1% were resistant, intermediate, and sensitive to CFM, respectively. Using CFM with DDST was positive in 66.5%, and in 68.7% with the disk replacement method. Compared to genotyping, screening with CFM achieved 87.7% sensitivity and 64.7% specificity. CFM-AMC confirmation by double-disk synergy test achieved 75.4% sensitivity and 75.8% specificity rates, while the sensitivity and specificity of CFM-AMC using the disk replacement method were 73 and 70% (Table 4). Increasing the cut-off point of CFM resistance increased the sensitivity of the distance without affecting its specificity (Table 5). Similarly, using 1 mm of synergy distance for CFM-AMC in DDST enhanced the sensitivity rate without affecting specificity (Table 5).

Table 5 The sensitivity and specificity rates of CFM for screening of ESBL using disk diffusion method at deferent breakpoints and for CFM-AMC DDST at different synergy distances
Full size table

Discussion

In this study, a high prevalence of ESBL-EC (85.8%) was documented by presence of at least one known ESBL gene among hospitalized patients from two centers. This agrees with most previous studies in Jordan which indicated a dramatic increase in ESBL-EC in recent years [12, 15, 23,24,25,26]. The high prevalence of ESBL-EC isolates is alarming and would limit treatment options for patients. These isolates were susceptible to aminoglycosides and carbapenem drugs, which are available mostly as parenteral drugs and would require hospitalization with all of its clinical, social, and economic impacts. The antibiotic susceptibility pattern of E. coli isolates in this study indicated over 50% resistance to all antibiotic classes except aminoglycosides and carbapenems. This is similar to other studies [15, 20, 23, 27].

Molecular methods were used as a reference method to evaluate the performance of different phenotypic ESBL tests. In this study, four phenotypic methods were performed on all E. coli isolates. The ESBL screening test had the highest sensitivity (89.8%) but the lowest specificity (61.8%) rate. Confirmatory tests, including the disk replacement test, had an 85.5% sensitivity rate and 64% specificity rate, DDST had an 84.3% sensitivity rate and 71.9% specificity rate, while automated Vitek 2 ESBL test had the lowest sensitivity rate at 67.1% but the highest specificity rate of 100%. These results are comparable to other studies, which indicates variable but high rates of false positive results of the different phenotypic methods compared to genotyping (broth microdilution, DDST, disk replacement test, and Vitek 2 ESBL test) [18,19,20, 28, 29].

The CTX-M gene was the most common ESBL gene isolated in this study, which is similar to other studies [12, 15, 23]. The TEM gene accounted for 42.5% of ESBL genes, which is higher than previously reported by Nimri et al. (23.6%) [12] and lower than the reported percentage (69%) by another study [24]. The SHV gene accounted for 4.6% while previous studies reported 0%, 1%, 14.3% and 30.6%, respectively [12, 15, 23, 24].

About 3.8% of E. coli isolates were positive for an ESBL phenotypic confirmation test with absence of detectable ESBL genes (CTX-M, TEM, and SHV), possibly due to the presence of other less common ESBL genes [7]. Furthermore, 8.8% of isolates were negative by all ESBL confirmation tests but had one detectable ESBL gene, indicating a false negative result [30] or the presence of unexpressed ESBL genes similar to susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae [30] and E. coli isolates [31]. Interestingly, 15 (6.3%) of isolates were positive by a screening test andnegative by confirmation tests even though they had detectable ESBL genes (11/15 had CTX-M gen and 7/15 had TEM gene). These strains mostly possess AmpC beta-lactamases that masked the inhibitory effect of the ESBL inhibitor clavulanic acid [5].

Among different antibiotics used for ESBL screening, CTX was the most sensitive while CAZ was the most specific. CFM achieved high sensitivity and specificity rates that were equal to or better than other antibiotics used for ESBL screening. Furthermore, CFM-AMC was superior compared to other antibiotics in DDST and disk replacement tests. Increasing the cut-off point of CFM resistance in disk diffusion and using 1 mm of synergy distance for CFM-AMC in DDST enhanced the sensitivity rate without affecting the specificity rate.

Conclusions

A high prevalence of ESBL production was noted among E. coli isolates from two referral centers in Jordan. CTX-M was the most prevalent ESBL gene (75%), followed by TEM at 42.5% and SHV at only 4.6%. The ESBL Screening test achieved the highest sensitivity but the lowest specificity rates of all phenotypic tests. DDST and disk replacement testing were comparable in their sensitivity rates while DDST was superior in specificity rate. Vitek ESBL testing had the lowest sensitivity but the highest specificity rate. CFM was equal or superior to other antibiotics used for ESBL screening while CFM-AMC testing was superior compared to other antibiotics in DDST and disk replacement testing. Using CFM and CFM-AMC disks for detection of ESBLs provides a new, simple, and accurate method.

References

  1. Makvana S, and Krilov LR. Escherichia coli infections. Pediatr Rev. 2015;36:167–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. WHO 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance. Accessed 01 Sept 2021.

  3. Paitan Y. Current trends in antimicrobial resistance of Escherichia coli. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2018;416:181–211.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fernandez L, and Hancock RE. Adaptive and mutational resistance: role of porins and efflux pumps in drug resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 2012; 25, 661–681.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bajaj P, Singh NS, and Virdi JS. Escherichia coli beta-lactamases: what really matters. Front Microbiol 2016;7,417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bush K, and Jacoby GA. Updated functional classification of beta-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010;54,969–976.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Paterson DL, and Bonomo RA. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases: a clinical update. Clin Microbiol Rev 2005;18,657–686.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Canton R, Gonzalez-Alba JM, and Galan JC. CTX-M enzymes: origin and diffusion. Front Microbiol 2012;3,110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Borg MA, van de Sande-Bruinsma N, Scicluna E, de Kraker M, Tiemersma E, Monen J, and Grundmann H. Antimicrobial resistance in invasive strains of Escherichia coli from southern and eastern Mediterranean laboratories. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008;14,789–796.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Zowawi HM, Balkhy HH, Walsh TR, and Paterson DL. beta-Lactamase production in key gram-negative pathogen isolates from the Arabian Peninsula. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013; 26, 361–380.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zahedi Bialvaei A, Samadi Kafil H, Ebrahimzadeh Leylabadlo H, Asgharzadeh M, and Aghazadeh, M. Dissemination of carbapenemases producing Gram negative bacteria in the Middle East. Iran J Microbiol 2015;7, 226–246.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Nimri L, and Azaizeh B. First report of multidrug-resistant ESBL-producing urinary escherichia coli in Jordan. Microbiol Res J Int. 2012;28:71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Aqel AA, Meunier D, Alzoubi HM, Masalha IM, and Woodford N. Detection of CTX-M-type extended-spectrum beta-lactamases among Jordanian clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae. Scand J Infect Dis 2014;46,155–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Aqel AA, Findlay J, Al-Maayteh M, Al-Kaabneh A, Hopkins KL, Alzoubi H, Masalha I, Turton J, Woodford N, and Ellington MJ. Characterization of carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae from patients in Amman, Jordan. Microb Drug Resist 2018; 24,1121–1127.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Al-Jamei SA, Albsoul AY, Bakri FG, and Al-Bakri AG. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing E. coli in urinary tract infections: a two-center, cross-sectional study of prevalence, genotypes and risk factors in Amman, Jordan. J Infect Public Health 2019;12:21–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Drieux L, Brossier F, Sougakoff W, and Jarlier V. Phenotypic detection of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase production in Enterobacteriaceae: review and bench guide. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008;14, 90–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, M100, 31st Edition, January 2021. https://clsi.org/standards/products/microbiology/documents/m100/. Accessed 01 Sept 2021.

  18. Wang P, Chen S, Guo Y, Xiong Z, Hu F, Zhu D, and Zhang Y. Occurrence of false positive results for the detection of carbapenemases in carbapenemase-negative Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates. PLoS One 2011;6,e26356.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lob SH, Biedenbach DJ, Badal R E, Kazmierczak KM, and Sahm DF. Discrepancy between genotypic and phenotypic extended-spectrum beta-lactamase rates in Escherichia coli from intra-abdominal infections in the USA. J Med Microbiol 2016;65,905–909.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Al-Tamimi M, Abu-Raideh J, Albalawi H, Shalabi M, and Saleh S. Effective oral combination treatment for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-produroducing Escherichia coli. Microb Drug Resist 2019;25,1132–1141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Saladin M, Cao VT, Lambert T, Donay JL, Herrmann JL, Ould-Hocine Z, Verdet C, Delisle F, Philippon A, and Arlet G. Diversity of CTX-M beta-lactamases and their promoter regions from Enterobacteriaceae isolated in three Parisian hospitals. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2002;209,161–168.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Weill FX, Demartin M, Fabre L, and Grimont PA. Extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase (TEM-52)-producing strains of Salmonella enterica of various serotypes isolated in France. J Clin Microbiol 2004;42,3359–3362.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hayajneh WA, Hajj A, Hulliel F, Sarkis DK, Irani-Hakimeh N, Kazan L, and Badal RE. Susceptibility trends and molecular characterization of Gram-negative bacilli associated with urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections in Jordan and Lebanon: SMART 2011–2013.Int J Infect Dis. 2015;35:56–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Muhammad MH, and Swedan S. Molecular and phenotypic characterization of carbapenem resistance and extended spectrum betalactamases among urinary Escherichia coli isolates. Int J Sci Technol. 2015;5:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hajj A, Adaime A, Hayajneh W, Abdallah A, Itani T, Hakime N, Mallah M, Alsamarneh R, Badal R, and Sarkis DK. Post Syrian war impact on susceptibility rates and trends in molecular characterization of Enterobacteriaceae. Future Microbiol. 2018;13:1419–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Shakhatreh MAK, Swedan SF, Ma’ A, and Khabour OF. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) in Jordan: prevalence of urovirulence genes and antibiotic resistance. J King Saud Univ Sci. 2019;31:648–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Almomani BA, Hayajneh WA, Ayoub AM, Ababneh MA, and Al Momani MA. Clinical patterns, epidemiology and risk factors of community-acquired urinary tract infection caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producers: a prospective hospital case-control study. Infection. 2018;46:495–501.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Numanovic F, Hukic M, Delibegovic Z, Tihic N, Pasic S, and Gegic M. Comparison of double disk synergy test, VITEK 2 and Check-MDR CT102 for detection of ESBL producing isolates. Acta Med Acad. 2013;42:15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gupta V, Singh M, Datta P, Goel A, Singh S, Prasad K, and Chander J. Detection of various beta-Lactamases in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella sp.: a study from Tertiary Care Centre of North India. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2020;38:390–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang Z, Zhai Y, Guo Y, Li D, Wang Z, Wang J, Chen Y, Wang Q, and Gao Z. Characterization of unexpressed extended-spectrum beta-lactamase genes in antibiotic–sensitive Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates. Microb Drug Resist. 2018;24:799–806.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kazemian H, Heidari H, Ghanavati R, Ghafourian S, Yazdani F, Sadeghifard N, Valadbeigi H, Maleki A, and Pakzad I. Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of ESBL-, AmpC-, and carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli isolates. Med Prin Pract. 2019;28:547–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a scientific grant provided by the scientific research deanship, The Hashemite University, Jordan. We would like to thank the participants who agreed to be part of this study.

Funding

This research was funded by a scientific grant provided by the scientific research deanship, The Hashemite University, Jordan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan

    Mohammad Al-Tamimi, Hadeel Albalawi, Jumana Abu-Raideh, Ashraf I. Khasawneh & Farah Alhaj

  2. Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, Faculty of Medicine, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan

    Marwan Shalabi

Authors
  1. Mohammad Al-Tamimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hadeel Albalawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marwan Shalabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jumana Abu-Raideh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ashraf I. Khasawneh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Farah Alhaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MA designed the study, supervised the study, analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. HA, JA, and FA carried out the experiments and analyzed the data. MS and AK participated in the design of the study, co-supervised the study and review the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Al-Tamimi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This work was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of The Hashemite University and Prince Hamzah Hospital. The participant has agreed to participate and signed a voluntary consent form.

Consent for publication

All study participants have provided informed consent for participation and publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Tamimi, M., Albalawi, H., Shalabi, M. et al. Cefixime and cefixime-clavulanate for screening and confirmation of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in Escherichia coli. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 21, 20 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-022-00508-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-022-00508-4

Keywords

Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials

ISSN: 1476-0711

Contact us