Next Article in Journal
Validation of Ultrasound Measurement of Vastus Lateralis for Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients with Hemodialysis
Previous Article in Journal
Candidemia in an Orthopedic Patient Detected Coincidentally by Peripheral Blood Smear
Previous Article in Special Issue
Age-Specific Seroprevalence of Hepatitis A Virus in Turkey Between 2000 and 2023: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/diagnostics14222599
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Molecular Characteristics on Colistin Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii

by
Ihsan Hakki Ciftci
1,*,
Elmas Pinar Kahraman Kilbas
2 and
Imdat Kilbas
3
1
Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, 54100 Sakarya, Turkey
2
Department of Medical Laboratory Techniques, Health Services Vocational School, Fenerbahce University, 34758 Istanbul, Turkey
3
Medical Microbiology Doctorate Program, Institute of Health Sciences, Istanbul University, 34093 Istanbul, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2024, 14(22), 2599; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14222599
Submission received: 13 October 2024 / Revised: 12 November 2024 / Accepted: 13 November 2024 / Published: 19 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases and Microorganisms)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: This study aimed to determine the molecular epidemiology of colistin-resistant A. baumannii in the last ten years and the frequency of gene regions related to pathogenesis, to compare the methods used to detect genes, and to confirm colistin resistance. Methods: This meta-analysis study was conducted under Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Guidelines. In the meta-analysis, research articles published in English and Turkish in electronic databases between January 2012 and November 2023 were examined. International Business Machines (IBM) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics for Macbook (Version 25.0. Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) (Version 3.0. Biostat, NJ, USA) program was used for heterogeneity assessment in the articles included in the meta-analysis. Results: After evaluating the studies according to the elimination criteria, 18 original articles were included. Among colistin-resistant strains, blaOXA-51 positivity was 243 (19.61%), blaOXA-23 was 113 (9.12%), blaOXA-58 was 7 (0.56%), blaOXA-143 was 15 (1.21%), and blaOXA-72 was seen in two (0.16%) strains. The positivity rates of pmrA, pmrB, and pmrC were found to be 22 (1.77%), 26 (2.09%), and 6 (0.48%). The mcr-1 rate was found to be 91 (7.34%), the mcr-2 rate was 78 (6.29%), and the mcr-3 rate was 82 (6.61%). Conclusions: The colistin resistance rate in our study was found to be high. However, only some research articles report and/or investigate more than one resistance gene together. Additionally, it may be challenging to explain colistin resistance solely by expressing resistance genes without discussing accompanying components such as efflux pumps, virulence factors, etc.

1. Introduction

Acinetobacter baumannii causes critical hospital-acquired infections such as respiratory tract, urinary tract, blood circulation, surgical site, and wound infections. Antibiotic misuse have led to the spread of drug-resistant strains of this microorganism, leading to the use of last resort antibiotics, such as colistin, in the treatment of these infections [1].
The clinical use of colistin began in the 1950s. Due to its toxic effects on the kidney and nervous system, it could only be used in the treatment of lung infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria in patients with cystic fibrosis [2,3]. Today, colistin is widely used in animal feed production and carries a major health risk [4]. Following MDR, the emergence of extensively drug-resistant (XDR) and pan-drug-resistant (PDR) Gram-negative bacteria has led to the repurposing of antibiotics such as colistin, which are considered a last resort in treatment [5].
Colistin has bactericidal activity against many Gram-negative bacteria due to its interaction with the negatively charged lipid A moiety of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) [6]. Colistin has been used for some time as an antibiotic of last resort against carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii strains; however, according to recent reports, colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains appear to be increasing in clinical settings [4]. The most prominent colistin resistance mechanisms in A. baumannii occur due to LPS modification mediated by the PmrA/PmrB system and the loss of LPS due to impaired synthesis of lipid A [7].
LPS modification is a common mechanism of acquired colistin resistance in Gram-negative bacilli. In A. baumannii, phosphoethanolamine (PetN) is added to the 40-phosphate or 1-phosphate group of lipid A, reducing the negative charge of LPS and the binding affinity of colistin [8]. This type of colistin resistance occurs predominantly due to mutations in the genes encoding PmrAB, which leads to the overexpression of the PetN transferase PmrC [9].
Recently, it has been demonstrated that colistin resistance genes transferred via plasmid also have an effect on colistin resistance [10]. The mcr-1 is a plasmid-mediated gene encoding a PetN transferase that causes colistin resistance [5]. mcr-1 was detected for the first time in Escherichia coli obtained from various clinical, animal, and environmental samples in China in 2016 [11].
More than 100 variants of the mcr gene family (mcr-1-10) have been identified in bacteria isolated from animals, food, humans, and the environment [3,12]. The mcr-1 and mcr-4.3 variants are the most frequently detected mcr gene regions in A. baumannii.
Nosocomial infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria cause increased mortality, morbidity, and treatment costs and continue to endanger the lives of patients in hospitals, especially those with compromised immune systems [13]. Therefore, the identification of resistance genes and other resistance mechanisms in A. baumannii is of great importance for the control of hospital infections caused by MDR bacteria. These genetic analyses can provide critical data for the development of treatment strategies and the prevention of the spread of resistant strains.
This meta-analysis aimed to examine the molecular epidemiology of colistin-resistant A. baumannii in the last decade, to determine the prevalence of gene loci associated with resistance, to discuss the methods used to define related genes, and to use tests to confirm colistin resistance.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Search and Research Strategies

This systematic review was conducted under the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Guidelines [14]. The study included research articles published in English and Turkish in the PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Elton B. Stephens Company (EBSCO), and Turkish Medline databases between January 2012 and November 2023.
The literature was searched for original articles in English and Turkish reporting on colistin resistance around the world, using the key terms “kolistin Acinetobacter izolatlari”, “kolistin direncli A. baumannii izolatları”, “kolistin direncli A. baumannii izolatlarının karakterizasyonu”, “kolistin direncli A. baumannii izolatlarının epidemiyolojisi”, “kolistin direncli A. baumannii virulans genleri”, “colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii”, “colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii virulence genes” and “Molecular characterization of colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii”. The screening and collection of articles containing the keywords were performed by three different authors. The authors independently evaluated the research articles that met the inclusion criteria. Discrepancies that emerged were discussed in a scientific meeting organized by the team and a consensus was reached.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies containing more than ten samples of A. baumannii strains isolated from clinical specimens, original studies, studies published between January 2012 and November 2023, and studies whose publication languages were English and Turkish were included.
Book chapters, systematic reviews, compilations, meta-analysis studies, case reports, letters to the editor, studies whose full text was not available, studies that did not identify the strains used at the species level, studies with fewer than ten strains included, articles in languages other than English and Turkish, congress proceedings, animal studies, data-inconsistent studies, and repetitive studies were eliminated.

2.3. Data Collection and Quality Assessment

During the literature search phase, titles and abstracts were reviewed and the full texts of studies deemed appropriate by consensus of the authors were obtained. Spreadsheets were prepared, using Microsoft Excel, for data collection. In these spreadsheets, information such as the author information for each study, the year the study was published, the institution where the research was conducted, sample size, the number of confirmed samples, the methods applied, the methods used for detecting colistin resistance, and relevant gene regions were recorded.
Three authors assessed the studies’ quality using the prevalence studies checklist from the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. The checklist consists of nine questions that reviewers answer for each survey. A “Yes” answer to each question received 1 point. Thus, the final score of each study ranged from 0 to 9. A score of 4 to 6 was considered medium-quality, and a study scoring 7 to 9 was regarded as high-quality [15].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Macbook (Version 25.0. Armonk, NY, USA) package program. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to analyze whether the colistin resistance rate differed statistically over time. The statistical significance level was p < 0.05. Differences between groups were analyzed to be significant using the Tukey test, one of the post hoc analyses.
Forest plots and statistical tests (I2 heterogeneity measurement) were used to evaluate heterogeneity in the articles included in the meta-analysis. The design type (fixed or random effects model) was determined based on the test results. These tests were performed in the CMA (Version 3.0. Biostat, NJ, USA) program.

3. Results

A total of 1674 studies published between 2012 and 2023 were identified as a result of scanning the databases. As a result of evaluating these studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, it was determined that 18 original articles met the appropriate conditions (Figure 1). As a result of the quality evaluation of the studies, it was determined that seven (38.88%) were of medium quality and eleven (61.12%) were of high quality.
The included publications were analyzed and divided into three periods: 2012–2019 (n = 7), 2019–2020 (n = 6), and 2021–2023 (n = 5). According to Begg’s rank correlation analysis, no evidence of publication bias was detected (p = 0.236; p > 0.05).
It was determined that the most frequently used identification method was Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), which was used in 17 of 18 studies. It was determined that the most commonly used methods for identification purposes other than PCR were sequencing in four of the 18 studies and Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) in four.
It was determined that the most frequently used method for determining antibiotic resistance/susceptibility rates was the VITEK-2 system (bioMerieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France). It was also determined that the most commonly used identification method was the VITEK-2 system, followed by the microdilution method (four studies) and Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion methods (four studies). In 2017, Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) established the broth microdilution method as the reference method for determining colistin susceptibility, in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 20776 [16]. Disk diffusion and gradient strip methods are not recommended due to their limited ability to diffuse in agar [17]. It has been reported that the MicroScan test system, which works with the broth microdilution principle, has high performance when detecting colistin resistance, with a very large error rate of 0.8% [18]. MALDI-TOF MS rapidly detects antibiotic resistance in bacteria through protein analysis (sensitivity: 91% and above) [19]. VITEK-2 is an automated system that determines the susceptibility of bacterial cultures by placing various antibiotic concentrations on cards. The sensitivity rate of the VITEK-2 system in detecting colistin resistance in A. baumannii has been reported to be 90.1% [20]. Although the detection of mcr genes through PCR has been reported to have sensitivity and specificity rates close to 100%, it is not sufficient for rapid diagnosis of the mcr-1 gene in A. baumannii; therefore, it is recommended that PCR-positive samples be confirmed using DNA sequencing [21]. Sequencing provides high accuracy by directly analyzing genetic material, though it is an expensive and time-consuming method [22].
While it was determined that there were differences between the methods used to determine colistin resistance/sensitivity ratios, the most frequently used method was the microdilution method. It was determined that agar dilution and gradient strip test were the most commonly used methods, after the microdilution method, for confirming colistin resistance. It was observed that the included studies were frequently conducted in Middle Eastern countries and that most reports were from Iran and Egypt. Information regarding all the studies is given in Table 1.
It was determined that 58.22% of all patients in the articles included in the study were male, and 41.78% were female. A total of 1239 strains were studied from all studies, and 357 (28.81%) were found to be resistant to colistin. The average colistin resistance rate was determined to be 39.1 ± 32.6%. It was found that there was no statistically significant difference in colistin resistance rates over the years (p = 0.28; p > 0.05). In research articles with a sample size of less than 50, the average rate of colistin resistance in A. baumannii isolates was 58.30% (95% CI: 5–100%), while in studies with a sample size of 50 or more, it was calculated to be 23.74% (95% CI: 2.14–76.03%) in studies. In studies in African countries, the colistin resistance rate was, on average, 37.41% (95% CI: 9.38–76.92%). In studies in Asian countries, it was 32.73% (95% CI: 2.14–100%); in European countries, it was 52.86% (95% CI: 28.57–100%) on average (Figure 2).
Among colistin-resistant strains, blaOXA-51 positivity was 243 (19.61%), blaOXA-23 113 (9.12%), blaOXA-58 7 (0.56%), blaOXA-143 15 (1.21%), blaOXA-72 was seen in two (0.16%) strains, while blaOXA-24 was tested in three of the included studies and no positive strain was detected.
When the results of the studies included in our meta-analysis were examined, the positivity rates of pmrA, pmrB, and pmrC were found to be 22 (1.77%), 26 (2.09%), and 6 (0.48%), respectively. The mcr-1 rate was found to be 91 (7.34%), the mcr-2 rate was 78 (6.29%), and the mcr-3 rate was 82 (6.61%), while mcr-4 was tested in two studies and mcr-5 was tested in three studies, and no positivity was detected. mcr-1+mcr-2, mcr-1+mcr-3, and mcr-1+mcr-2+mcr-3 genes were detected in a single study and positivity rates were reported as 61.15% (74), 63.63% (77), and 54.54% (66), respectively (Table 2).
It was observed that bap, ompA, blaPER, integron intI2, integron intI3, and blaNDM genes were tested in one study each, and the positivity rates were reported, respectively, as 2.85% (2), 2.85% (2), 2.85% (2), 64.46% (78), 66.94% (81), and 5.20% (5).
Colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains were isolated from intensive care wards in four (22.22%) studies and from 14 patients in various inpatient wards (77.78%). No statistically significant difference was detected in the rate of colistin resistance in terms of clinical diversity (p = 0.89; p > 0.05).
Ten studies used only PCR to detect gene regions, three used PCR + sequencing, three used PCR + MALDITOF MS, one used only sequencing, and one used only MALDI-TOF MS. The most commonly used method for detecting antibiotic resistance was VITEK-2 (10 studies); the other methods are shown in Table 1. It was determined that the prevalence rates of blaOXA-51, blaOXA-23, pmrA, and pmrB genes did not show a statistically significant difference according to the gene region detection method (p = 0.69; p = 0.47; p = 0.36; p = 0.44, p > 0.05).
Four studies used A. baumannii ATCC 19606 as a positive control, two studies used mcr-1 positive E. coli, one study used E. coli NCTC 1384, and one used A. baumannii ATCC BAA-747. The other studies did not report the positive controls they used. Twelve included studies used the Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) as a guideline, while four used the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). Two of the studies used both CLSI and EUCAST as guidelines. The use of different guidelines for antibiotic susceptibility testing may lead to variations in breakpoints, test methods, and susceptibility categories. Since the CLSI- and EUCAST-recommended breakpoints for colistin differ, different susceptibility results may have occurred for the same isolate. This may have led to bacteria being considered susceptible in one guideline and being classified as resistant in another.
The studies on heterogeneity levels (i2) were divided into groups, as shown in Table 2. According to Cooper, Hedges and Valentin (2009), an i2 value of over 75% indicates a high level of heterogeneity [39]. This result required estimating the actual effect size with a random effects model. The effect size calculated with the random effects model in the study and the weights of the studies in the meta-analysis are shown as a forest plot graphic in Figure 3. From the included studies, the pooled prevalence of colistin resistance in A. baumannii clinical isolates was 34% (95% confidence interval (CI): 30–47%), ranging from 0.2% to 98% (Figure 3). The symmetric funnel plot showed no evidence of publication bias.

4. Discussion

A. baumannii is an important bacterium that causes a variety of healthcare-associated infections, particularly in immunocompromised patients [40]. These patient groups include patients in the intensive care unit, patients requiring long-term care, patients undergoing surgery, patients undergoing central vascular catheterization, patients undergoing tracheostomy, patients experiencing enteral bleeding, and low-birth-weight neonates [41,42]. Although mortality rates due to A. baumannii infections vary between 12 and 50%, these rates can vary greatly depending on factors such as patients’ accompanying health problems, length of hospital stay, demographic factors, and the sensitivity of the strains causing the infection to antibiotics [43,44].
A. baumannii drug resistance spreads quickly worldwide and is affected by various factors. The most important of these factors is the misuse and excessive use of antibiotics. Increasing resistance to first and second-line antibiotics has made it necessary to use colistin as a last-resort treatment. Since using colistin in the treatment of various infections, the number of studies reporting colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains has increased rapidly [4,45]. Therefore, in our meta-analysis study, the prevalence of antibiotic resistance genes in colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains was investigated, and data on gene regions that play a role in the expression of colistin resistance in these strains, as well as other resistance mechanisms accompanying colistin resistance, were presented.
According to the results of our study, the average colistin resistance rate in the 18 included articles was 39.1%. Mohammadi et al. [46] (2017) included 448 A. baumannii strains in their meta-analysis study and reported the colistin resistance rate as 2%. In Turkey, Ciftci et al. [47] (2022) included studies published between 2005 and 2020 in their meta-analysis and reported the colistin resistance rate as 7.9%. The study’s data show that colistin resistance was reported as 2.94% between 2011 and 2015, but this rate changed to 13.42% between 2016 and 2020. In recent studies, colistin resistance rates from India, Pakistan, Turkey, and Sweden have been reported as 10.1%, 9.6%, 28%, and 36.36%, respectively [10,48,49,50]. Our meta-analysis findings show that the colistin resistance rate in A. baumannii strains is higher compared to these studies. This rate was found to be highest in studies conducted in the European continent (52.85%). Differences in colistin resistance between countries may vary depending on antibiotic use habits, health infrastructure, infection control policies, and genetic characteristics. The high colistin resistance rates in Turkey can be attributed to the excessive and incorrect use of antibiotics in the food, feed, and livestock industries, as well as their use in the treatment of infectious diseases. In India and Pakistan, inadequate sanitation conditions and deficiencies in the health system contribute to the increase in colistin resistance. In developed countries such as Sweden, although colistin resistance rates remain at lower levels thanks to the strict control of antibiotic use and the effectiveness of infection control measures, bacterial transfer due to food import and tourism activities is the biggest risk factor. The patient population from which strains are isolated in studies may also affect resistance rates. For example, studies that select only carbapenem-resistant strains may show higher overall resistance rates. Therefore, the high heterogeneity in colistin resistance observed across countries and studies is likely to vary significantly depending on factors such as the clinical characteristics of the selected patient group, treatment history, and the health, food, and migration policies of the countries.
In this meta-analysis, the prevalence of blaOXA-51 in colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains was 19.61% (243); blaOXA-23 was 9.12% (113), blaOXA-58 was 0.56% (7), blaOXA-143 was 1.21% (15), and blaOXA-72 was 0.16% (2). blaOXA-24 was tested in three of the included studies, and no positive strains were detected. According to the data of the systematic review conducted by Kahraman Kılbas et al. [51] (2022) on carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii strains in Turkey, the incidence rates of blaOXA genes were determined to be as follows: blaOXA-23 (76.4%), blaOXA-23-like (68.6%), blaOXA-24/40 (1.2%), blaOXA-24/40-like (3.4%), blaOXA-51 (97.0%), blaOXA-51-like (98.6%), blaOXA-58 (8.4%), and blaOXA-58-like (17.1%), respectively.
The recent emergence of colistin resistance and the discovery of mobile colistin resistance (mcr) genes encoding the phosphoethanolamine transferase enzyme that changes the cell wall have made overcoming this resistance even more difficult. mcr genes have been associated with plasmids passed by conjugation [52]. The global spread of mcr genes has been extensively documented. Three hundred fifty-seven colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains were isolated from the studies in our meta-analysis. mcr-1 positivity was reported in 91 (7.34%) of these strains, mcr-2 positivity was reported in 78 (6.29%), and mcr-3 positivity was reported in 82 (6.61%). mcr-4 was tested in two studies and mcr-5 in three studies, and no positivity was detected. mcr-1+mcr-2, mcr-1+mcr-3, and mcr-1+mcr-2+mcr-3 genes were detected in a single study, and their positivity rates were reported to be 61.15% (74), 63.63% (77), and 54.54% (66), respectively. In our meta-analysis, all mcr genes were studied in countries in the Asian continent. Studies conducted in the Czech Republic suggest that food imports from America and Asia can easily transport A. baumannii strains carrying mcr genes to European countries [53,54].
Colistin resistance in A. baumannii is an acquired resistance. Chromosomal mutations in the pmrAB biphasic system also contribute to this resistance [55]. Considering the results of the studies included in our study, the positivity rates of pmrA, pmrB, and pmrC were found to be 1.77% (22), 2.09% (26), and 0.48% (6), respectively. In their multicenter study with colistin-resistant A. baumannii strains, Goic-Barisic et al. [23] (2023) reported the pmrA and pmrB positivity rates as 9.09% and 9.09%, respectively. At the same time, they did not find the pmrC gene. Snyman et al. (2020) did not detect the pmrA, pmrB, or pmrC genes with colistin-resistant strains in their study [24].
Difficulties in detecting colistin resistance are frequently brought up, and it is reported that the most appropriate method is still controversial [56]. The CLSI–EUCAST joint working group recommends minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) measurement using the broth microdilution method [57]. In the studies included in the meta-analysis, the prevalence of colistin resistance in studies using liquid microdilution, agar dilution, gradient strip, and disk diffusion methods was found to be 55.53% (min–max: 5–100%), 37.96% (min–max: 25.93–50%), 26.1% (min–max: 23.62–28.57%), 4.07% (min–max: 2.14–6%), respectively (p = 0.18; p > 0.05). The colistin resistance rate calculated by the liquid microdilution method was observed to be higher than that of other methods. However, it should be kept in mind that these prevalence differences may vary depending on the patient’s demographic and/or clinical information. Additionally, heteroresistant A. baumannii isolates have been reported to be identified as susceptible to colistin, leading to colistin treatment failures [58]. Therefore, since the population analysis profile (PAP) is considered the gold standard in heteroresistant strains, it is recommended that the mini-PAP method, in which the colistin MIC is determined as >2 mg/L, be included in clinical practice [59].

5. Conclusions

Today, low-, middle-, and high-income countries are experiencing problems due to colistin resistance. According to the data examined in this meta-analysis, it is impossible to explain colistin resistance in A. baumannii clinical isolates only by molecular mechanisms, because there are very few research articles reporting and/or investigating more than one resistance gene together. It may also be difficult to explain colistin resistance solely through the expression of resistance genes without discussing components such as efflux pumps, virulence factors, etc. Our study reveals common methods used worldwide to identify colistin resistance and recognized gene regions that are related to colistin resistance in A. baumannii. These epidemiological data will contribute to planning clinical research studies with larger samples.
A. baumannii has become an essential pathogen due to its frequent occurrence in healthcare-associated infections, its virulence characteristics, and the diversity of its antibiotic resistance mechanisms. Due to the increasing prevalence of MDR strains, colistin has become widely used and thus, resistance rates have increased. The diversity of colistin resistance mechanisms in A. baumannii, including gene transfer, requires comprehensive information on these pathways. Extensive studies are needed to shed light on potential antibiotic resistance mechanisms. Due to the increasing prevalence of colistin-resistant strains, epidemiological studies, including sequence data investigating gene regions, will contribute to re-evaluating current therapeutic approaches.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.H.C., E.P.K.K. and I.K.; formal analysis, I.H.C. and E.P.K.K.; investigation, E.P.K.K. and I.K.; methodology, I.H.C.; project administration, I.H.C.; visualization, I.H.C. and E.P.K.K.; resources, I.H.C., E.P.K.K. and I.K.; writing—original draft preparation, I.H.C., E.P.K.K. and I.K.; writing—review and editing, I.H.C., E.P.K.K. and I.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Since this study is a meta-analysis study with no risks, patient consent was waived.

Data Availability Statement

The authors declare that all related data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wong, D.; Nielsen, T.B.; Bonomo, R.A.; Pantapalangkoor, P.; Luna, B.; Spellberg, B. Clinical and pathophysiological overview of Acinetobacter infections: A century of challenges. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2017, 30, 409–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Cunningham, S.; Prasad, A.; Collyer, L.; Carr, S.; Lynn, I.B.; Wallis, C. Bronchoconstriction following nebulised colistin in cystic fibrosis. Arch. Dis. Child. 2001, 84, 432–433. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Novović, K.; Jovčić, B. Colistin Resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii: Molecular Mechanisms and Epidemiology. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Biswas, S.; Brunel, J.M.; Dubus, J.C.; Reynaud-Gaubert, M.; Rolain, J.M. Colistin: An update on the antibiotic of the 21st century. Expert Rev. Anti. Infect. Ther. 2012, 10, 917–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jeannot, K.; Bolard, A.; Plésiat, P. Resistance to polymyxins in Gram-negative organisms. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2017, 49, 526–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Seleim, S.M.; Mostafa, M.S.; Ouda, N.H.; Shash, R.Y. The role of pmrCAB genes in colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 20951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nurtop, E.; Bayindir Bilman, F.; Menekse, S.; Kurt Azap, O.; Gonen, M.; Ergonul, O.; Can, F. Promoters of colistin resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii infections. Microb. Drug Resist. 2019, 5, 997–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Olaitan, A.O.; Morand, S.; Rolain, J.M. Mechanisms of polymyxin resistance: Acquired and intrinsic resistance in bacteria. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Arroyo, L.A.; Herrera, C.M.; Fernandez, L.; Hankins, J.V.; Trent, M.S.; Hancock, R.E. The pmrCAB operon mediates polymyxin resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC 17978 and clinical isolates through phosphoethanolamine modification of lipid A. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2011, 55, 3743–3751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hameed, F.; Khan, M.A.; Muhammad, H.; Sarwar, T.; Bilal, H.; Rehman, T.U. Plasmid-mediated mcr-1 gene in Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: First report from Pakistan. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2019, 52, e20190237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, Y.Y.; Wang, Y.; Walsh, T.R.; Yi, L.X.; Zhang, R.; Spencer, J.; Doi, Y.; Tian, G.; Dong, B.; Huang, X.; et al. Emergence of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance mechanism mcr-1 in animals and human beings in China: A microbiological and molecular biological study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Hussein, N.H.; AL-Kadmy, I.; Taha, B.M.; Hussein, J.D. Mobilized colistin resistance (mcr) genes from 1 to 10: A comprehensive review. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2021, 48, 2897–2907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lushniak, B.D. Antibiotic Resistance: A Public Health Crisis. Public Health Rep. 2014, 129, 314–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. MunnF, Z.; Moola, S.; Lisy, K.; Riitano, D.; Tufanaru, C. Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence. In JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis; Aromataris, E., Munn, Z., Eds.; JBI: Adelaide, SA, Australia, 2020; Chapter 5; pp. 117–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. EUCAST. Recommendations for MIC Determination of Colistin (Polymyxin E) as Recommended by the Joint CLSI-EUCAST Polymyxin Breakpoints Working Group; European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Basel, Switzerland, 2016; Available online: http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/General_documents/Recommendations_for_MIC_determination_of_colistin_March_2016.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2024).
  17. Jerke, K.H.; Lee, M.J.; Humphries, R.M. Polymyxin susceptibility testing: A cold case reopened. Clin. Microbiol. Newsl. 2016, 38, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jayol, A.; Nordmann, P.; André, C.; Poirel, L.; Dubois, V. Evaluation of three broth microdilution systems to determine colistin susceptibility of Gram-negative bacilli. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 1272–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Marí-Almirall, M.; Cosgaya, C.; Higgins, P.G.; Van Assche, A.; Telli, M.; Huys, G.; Lievens, B.; Seifert, H.; Dijkshoorn, L.; Roca, I.; et al. MALDI-TOF/MS identification of species from the Acinetobacter baumannii (Ab) group revisited: Inclusion of the novel A. seifertii and A. dijkshoorniae species. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 210.e1–210.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chung, H.-S.; Kim, S.K.; Hahm, C.; Lee, M. Performance Evaluation of the VITEK2 and Sensititre Systems to Determine Colistin Resistance and MIC for Acinetobacter baumannii. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nagiyev, T.; Kandemir, T.; Koksal, F. Misdiagnosis in molecular detection of colistin resistance: False mcr-1-PCR positivity among the colistin-susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii isolates. Cukurova Med. J. 2023, 48, 1139–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Besser, J.; Carleton, H.A.; Gerner-Smidt, P.; Lindsey, R.L.; Trees, E. Next-generation sequencing technologies and their application to the study and control of bacterial infections. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2018, 24, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Goic-Barisic, I.; Music, M.S.; Drcelic, M.; Tuncbilek, S.; Akca, G.; Jakovac, S.; Tonkić, M.; Hrenovic, J. Molecular characterisation of colistin and carbapenem-resistant clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii from Southeast Europe. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2023, 33, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Snyman, Y.; Whitelaw, A.C.; Reuter, S.; Dramowski, A.; Maloba, M.R.B.; Newton-Foot, M. Clonal expansion of colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates in Cape Town, South Africa. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 91, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Coppo, E.; Dusı, P.E.; Dotta, M.; Debbia, E.A.; Marchese, A. Characterization of colistin-resistant A. baumannii isolated in Intensive Care Unit of an Italian Hospital. Microbiol. Medica 2013, 28, 168–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lean, S.S.; Suhaili, Z.; Ismail, S.; Rahman, N.I.; Othman, N.; Abdullah, F.H.; Jusoh, Z.; Yeo, C.C.; Thong, K.L. Prevalence and Genetic Characterization of Carbapenem- and Polymyxin-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Isolated from a Tertiary Hospital in Terengganu, Malaysia. ISRN Microbiol. 2014, 2014, 953417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mavroidi, A.; Likousi, S.; Palla, E.; Katsiari, M.; Roussou, Z.; Maguina, A.; Platsouka, E.D. Molecular identification of tigecycline- and colistin-resistant carbapenemase-producing Acinetobacter baumannii from a Greek hospital from 2011 to 2013. J. Med. Microbiol. 2015, 64, 993–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sepahvand, S.; Doudi, M.; Davarpanah, M.A.; Bahador, A.; Ahmadi, M. Analyzing pmrA and pmrB genes in Acinetobacter baumannii resistant to colistin in Shahid Rajai Shiraz, Iran Hospital by PCR: First report in Iran. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 29, 1401–1416. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dortet, L.; Potron, A.; Bonnin, R.A.; Plesiat, P.; Naas, T.; Filloux, A.; Larrouy-Maumus, G. Rapid detection of colistin resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii using MALDI-TOF-based lipidomics on intact bacteria. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 16910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abdulzahra, A.T.; Khalil, M.A.F.; Elkhatib, W.F. First report of colistin resistance among carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates recovered from hospitalized patients in Egypt. New Microbes New Infect. 2018, 26, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Al-Kadmy, I.M.S.; Ibrahim, S.A.; Al-Saryi, N.; Aziz, S.N.; Besinis, A.; Hetta, H.F. Prevalence of genes involved in colistin resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii: First report from Iraq. Microb. Drug Resist. 2020, 26, 616–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Khoshnood, S.; Savari, M.; Abbasi Montazeri, E.; Farajzadeh Sheikh, A. Survey on genetic diversity, biofilm formation, and detection of colistin resistance genes in clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020, 13, 1547–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ghahraman, M.R.K.; Hosseini-Nave, H.; Azizi, O.; Shakibaie, M.R.; Mollaie, H.R.; Shakibaie, S. Molecular characterization of lpxACD and pmrA/B two-component regulatory system in the colistin resistance Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates. Gene Rep. 2020, 21, 100952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Palmieri, M.; D’Andrea, M.M.; Pelegrin, A.C.; Perrot, N.; Mirande, C.; Blanc, B.; Legakis, N.; Goossens, H.; Rossolini, G.M.; van Belkum, A. Abundance of colistin-resistant, OXA-23- and ArmA-producing Acinetobacter baumannii belonging to international clone 2 in Greece. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Fam, N.S.; Gamal, D.; Mohamed, S.H.; Wasfy, R.M.; Soliman, M.S.; El-Kholy, A.A.; Higgins, P.G. Molecular characterization of carbapenem/colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates from Egypt by whole-genome sequencing. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020, 13, 4487–4493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Farajnia, S.; Lotfi, F.; Dehnad, A.; Shojaie, M.; Raisi, R.; Rahbarnia, L.; Bazmani, A.; Naghili, B.; Shiry, S. The molecular characterization of colistin-resistant isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii from patients at intensive care units. Iran. J. Microbiol. 2022, 14, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Okdah, L.; AlDosary, M.S.; AlMazyed, A.; Alkhurayb, H.M.; Almossallam, M.; Al Obaisi, Y.S.; Marie, M.A.; Abdelrahman, T.; Diene, S.M. Genomic characterization of colistin-resistant isolates from the King Fahad Medical City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lowe, M.; Singh-Moodley, A.; Ismail, H.; Thomas, T.; Chibabhai, V.; Nana, T.; Lowman, W.; Ismail, A.; Chan, W.Y.; Perovic, O. Molecular characterisation of Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from bloodstream infections in a tertiary-level hospital in South Africa. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 863129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cooper, H.; Hedges, L.V.; Valentine, J.C. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2nd ed.; Sage Publication: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  40. Morris, F.C.; Dexter, C.; Kostoulias, X.; Uddin, M.I.; Peleg, A.Y. The mechanisms of disease caused by Acinetobacter baumannii. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Risser, C.; Pottecher, J.; Launoy, A.; Ursenbach, A.; Belotti, L.; Boyer, P.; Willemain, R.; Lavigne, T.; Deboscker, S. Management of a major carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii outbreak in a French intensive care unit while maintaining its capacity unaltered. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wong, S.C.; Chau, P.H.; So, S.Y.; Lam, G.K.; Chan, V.W.; Yuen, L.L.; Au Yeung, C.H.; Chen, J.H.; Ho, P.L.; Yuen, K.Y.; et al. Control of healthcare-associated carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii by enhancement of infection control measures. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cornejo-Juárez, P.; Cevallos, M.A.; Castro-Jaimes, S.; Castillo-Ramírez, S.; Velázquez-Acosta, C.; Martínez-Oliva, D.; Pérez-Oseguera, A.; Rivera-Buendía, F.; Volkow-Fernández, P. High mortality in an outbreak of multidrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection introduced to an oncological hospital by a patient transferred from a general hospital. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Appaneal, H.J.; Lopes, V.V.; LaPlante, K.L.; Caffrey, A.R. Treatment, clinical outcomes, and predictors of mortality among a national cohort of admitted patients with Acinetobacter baumannii infection. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2022, 66, e0197521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Trebosc, V.; Gartenmann, S.; Totzl, M.; Lucchini, V.; Schellhorn, B.; Pieren, M.; Lociuro, S.; Gitzinger, M.; Tigges, M.; Bumann, D.; et al. Dissecting colistin resistance mechanisms in extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates. mBio 2019, 10, e01083-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mohammadi, M.; Khayat, H.; Sayehmiri, K.; Soroush, S.; Sayehmiri, F.; Delfani, S.; Bogdanovic, L.; Taherikalani, M. Synergistic effect of colistin and rifampin against multidrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Microbiol. J. 2017, 11, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ciftci, İ.H.; Kılbas, I.; Kahraman Kilbas, E.P. The war against the resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii: A meta-analysis of findings in Turkiye. Erciyes Med. J. 2022, 44, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Singhal, L.; Sharma, M.; Verma, S.; Kaur, R.; Britto, X.B.; Kumar, S.M.; Ray, P.; Gautam, V. Comparative evaluation of broth microdilution with polystyrene and glass-coated plates, agar dilution, E-Test, Vitek, and disk diffusion for susceptibility testing of colistin and polymyxin B on carbapenem-resistant clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Microb. Drug Resist. 2018, 24, 1082–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Caglan, E.; Nigiz, S.; Sancak, B.; Gur, D. Resistance and heteroresistance to colistin among clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Acta Microbiol. Immunol. Hung. 2019, 29, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Matuschek, E.; Åhman, J.; Webster, C.; Kahlmeter, G. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of colistin—Evaluation of seven commercial MIC products against standard broth microdilution for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter spp. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2018, 24, 865–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kahraman Kilbas, E.P.; Kilbas, I.; Ciftci, I.H. Molecular epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates in Turkiye: Systematic review. North. Clin. İstanbul 2023, 10, 531–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lakshmanan, D.; Ramasamy, D.; Subramanyam, V.; Saravanan, S.K. Mobile colistin resistance (mcr) genes and recent developments in colistin resistance detection. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2023, 76, ovad102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bitar, I.; Medvecky, M.; Gelbicova, T.; Jakubu, V.; Hrabak, J.; Zemlickova, H.; Karpiskova, R.; Dolejska, M. Complete nucleotide sequences of mcr-4.3-carrying plasmids in Acinetobacter baumannii sequence type 345 of human and food origin from the Czech Republic, the first case in Europe. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, e01166-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kalová, A.; Gelbíčová, T.; Overballe-Petersen, S.; Litrup, E.; Karpíšková, R. Characterization of colistin-resistant Enterobacterales and Acinetobacter strains carrying mcr genes from Asian aquaculture products. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Asif, M.; Alvi, I.A.; Rehman, S.U. Insight into Acinetobacter baumannii: Pathogenesis, global resistance, mechanisms of resistance, treatment options, and alternative modalities. Infect. Drug Resist. 2018, 11, 1249–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Rhoads, D.D. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia susceptibility testing challenges and strategies. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2021, 59, e0109421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Chew, K.L.; La, M.V.; Lin, R.T.P.; Teo, J.W.P. Colistin and polymyxin b susceptibility testing for carbapenem-resistant and mcr-positive Enterobacteriaceae: Comparison of sensititre, MicroScan, Vitek 2, and Etest with broth microdilution. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 55, 2609–2616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, L.; Lin, J.; Lu, H.; Zhang, X.; Wang, C.; Liu, H.; Zhang, X.; Li, J.; Cao, J.; Zhou, T. Deciphering colistin heteroresistance in Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates from Wenzhou, China. J. Antibiot. 2020, 73, 463–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yau, W.; Owen, R.J.; Poudyal, A.; Bell, J.M.; Turnidge, J.D.; Yu, H.H.; Nation, R.L.; Li, J. Colistin hetero-resistance in multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates from the Western Pacific region in the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance programme. J. Infect. 2009, 58, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 14 02599 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the literature search and study selection process.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the literature search and study selection process.
Diagnostics 14 02599 g001
Diagnostics 14 02599 g002
Figure 2. Percentage of studies reporting colistin resistance genes in A. baumannii.
Figure 2. Percentage of studies reporting colistin resistance genes in A. baumannii.
Diagnostics 14 02599 g002
Diagnostics 14 02599 g003
Figure 3. Forest plot of studies [6,10,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38].
Figure 3. Forest plot of studies [6,10,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38].
Diagnostics 14 02599 g003
Table 1. Information of the studies included in the meta-analysis [6,10,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38].
Table 1. Information of the studies included in the meta-analysis [6,10,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38].
StudyCountryData Collection PeriodMolecular MethodGenes Encoded for Colistin ResistanceAntibiotic Resistance/Identification MethodColistin Resistance Confirmation MethodPositive ControlGuidelineTotal Isolates (n)Colistin Resistance Isolates
n (%)
Seleim et al., 2022 [6]Egypt2011–2013PCR, Sanger sequencingblaOXA-51 (49), pmrA (4), pmrB (4), mcr-1 (1)Microdilution Microdilution mcr-1-positive E. coliEUCAST10049 (49)
Hameed et al., 2019 [10]Pakistan2015–2017PCR, Sanger sequencingmcr-1 (1)Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion methodAgar dilution and microdilution-EUCAST626 (9.68)
Goic-Barisic et al., 2023 [23]Multicenter (Türkiye, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina)2015PCRpmrA (1), pmrB (1), mcr-1 (0), mcr-4 (0), mcr-5 (0)VITEK-2, disk diffusion, and microdilution Microdilution-CLSI, EUCAST1111 (100)
Snyman et al., 2020 [24]South Africa2016–2017PCRpmrA (0), pmrB (0), mcr-1 (0), mcr-4 (0), mcr-5 (0)VITEK-2 Microdilution and SensitestE. coli NCTC 1384EUCAST2620 (76.92)
Coppo et al., 2013 [25]Italy2020–2021PCRblaOXA-51 (5), blaOXA-23 (5), pmrA (0), pmrB (1)VITEK-2 Agar dilution-CLSI 105 (50)
Lean et al., 2014 [26]Malaysia2016–2018PCR, Sanger sequencingblaOXA-51 (14), blaOXA-23 (14), blaOXA-58 (0), blaOXA-24 (0), pmrA (0), pmrB (0)VITEK-2 Agar dilution-CLSI 5414 (25.93)
Mavroidi et al., 2015 [27]Greece2017–2018PCRblaOXA-51 (12), blaOXA-23 (7), blaOXA-58 (7)Microscan Gradient strip test-CLSI 4212 (28.57)
Sepahvand et al., 2016 [28]Iranian2018–2019PCRpmrA (4), pmrB (3)-Disk diffusion and gradient strip test-CLSI 1006 (6)
Dortet et al., 2018 [29]England2011PCR, MALDI-TOF MsblaOXA-23 (8), pmrA (1), pmrB (5)MicrodilutionMicrodilution mcr-1 positive E. coliCLSI, EUCAST179 (52.94)
Abdulzahra et al., 2018 [30]Egypt2017–2018PCRblaOXA-51 (2), blaOXA-58 (0), blaOXA-24 (0), pmrA (1), pmrB (2)VITEK-2 Microdilution-CLSI 402 (5)
Al-Kadmy et al., 2020 [31]Iraq-Sanger sequencingmcr-1 (89), mcr-2 (78), mcr-3 (82), intl-2 (78), intl-3 (81), mcr-1+mcr-2 (74), mcr-1 mcr-3 (77), mcr-1+mcr-2+mcr-3 (66)VITEK-2 Chromagar™ and microdilution A. baumannii ATCC BAA-747CLSI 12192 (76.03)
Khoshnood et al., 2020 [32]Iranian2015–2016PCRpmrA (2), pmrB (2), mcr-1 (0), bap (2), ompA (2), blaPER (2)VITEK-2 -A. baumannii ATCC 19606CLSI 702 (2.86)
Ghahraman et al., 2020 [33]Iranian2010PCRblaOXA-51 (4), blaOXA-23 (4), mcr-1 (0)Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion methodKirby–Bauer disk diffusion methodA. baumannii ATCC 19606 EUCAST1874 (2.14)
Palmieri et al., 2020 [34]Greece2015–2016PCR, MALDI-TOF MsblaOXA-51 (40)VITEK-2 MicrodilutionA. baumannii ATCC 19606CLSI 12240 (32.79)
Fam et al., 2020 [35]Egypt2016–2020PCRblaOXA-51 (9), blaOXA-23 (6), blaOXA-58 (0), pmrA (9), pmrB (4), pmrC (6)VITEK-2 Microdilution-CLSI 179 (52.94)
Farajnia et al., 2022 [36]Iranian2018–2021PCRblaOXA-51 (30), blaOXA-23 (15), blaOXA-58 (0), blaOXA-72 (1), pmrB (2), blaOXA-143 (15), blaOXA-72 (1)Morphological and biochemical methods Agar dilution and gradient strip testA. baumannii ATCC 19606CLSI 12730 (23.62)
Okdah et al., 2022 [37]Saudi Arabia2012–2020MALDI-TOF MsblaOXA-23 (36), blaOXA-72 (1)MicrodilutionMicrodilution-CLSI 3737 (100)
Lowe et al., 2022 [38]South Africa2019–2020PCR, MALDI-TOF MsblaOXA-23 (9), mcr-1 (0), blaNDM (5), mcr-5 (0)VITEK-2 Sensititre -CLSI 969 (9.38)
Table 2. Subgroup analysis of colistin resistance prevalence in A. baumannii isolates.
Table 2. Subgroup analysis of colistin resistance prevalence in A. baumannii isolates.
Prevalence (%)Number of Study Point Estimate
Fixed/Random		Heterogeneity (i2)Publication Bias (Begg’s Test)
p-Value
Year2012–201935.6870.209/0.20183.4960.010.22
2019–202036.1160.462/0.29696.151
2021–202337.5550.321/0.48792.783
CountryAfrica37.4030.263/0.32594.3740.010.39
Asia32.72100.357/0.22495.624
Europe52.8550.357/0.42363.618
ClinicsIntensive care25.4540.310/0.16796.0140.010.37
Inpatient services39.09130.269/0.30287.530
Sample size<5039.8780.470/0.56384.0880.010.73
≥5035.51100319/0.17395.565
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ciftci, I.H.; Kahraman Kilbas, E.P.; Kilbas, I. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Molecular Characteristics on Colistin Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14222599

AMA Style

Ciftci IH, Kahraman Kilbas EP, Kilbas I. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Molecular Characteristics on Colistin Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii. Diagnostics. 2024; 14(22):2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14222599

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ciftci, Ihsan Hakki, Elmas Pinar Kahraman Kilbas, and Imdat Kilbas. 2024. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Molecular Characteristics on Colistin Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii" Diagnostics 14, no. 22: 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14222599

APA Style

Ciftci, I. H., Kahraman Kilbas, E. P., & Kilbas, I. (2024). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Molecular Characteristics on Colistin Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii. Diagnostics, 14(22), 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14222599

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop