Dataset Information

Antimicrobial resistance among migrants in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are rising globally and there is concern that increased migration is contributing to the burden of antibiotic resistance in Europe. However, the effect of migration on the burden of AMR in Europe has not yet been comprehensively examined. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and synthesise data for AMR carriage or infection in migrants to Europe to examine differences in patterns of AMR across migrant groups and in different settings.

Methods

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus with no language restrictions from Jan 1, 2000, to Jan 18, 2017, for primary data from observational studies reporting antibacterial resistance in common bacterial pathogens among migrants to 21 European Union-15 and European Economic Area countries. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to report data on carriage or infection with laboratory-confirmed antibiotic-resistant organisms in migrant populations. We extracted data from eligible studies and assessed quality using piloted, standardised forms. We did not examine drug resistance in tuberculosis and excluded articles solely reporting on this parameter. We also excluded articles in which migrant status was determined by ethnicity, country of birth of participants' parents, or was not defined, and articles in which data were not disaggregated by migrant status. Outcomes were carriage of or infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms. We used random-effects models to calculate the pooled prevalence of each outcome. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016043681.

Findings

We identified 2274 articles, of which 23 observational studies reporting on antibiotic resistance in 2319 migrants were included. The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or AMR infection in migrants was 25·4% (95% CI 19·1-31·8; I² =98%), including meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (7·8%, 4·8-10·7; I² =92%) and antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (27·2%, 17·6-36·8; I² =94%). The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or infection was higher in refugees and asylum seekers (33·0%, 18·3-47·6; I² =98%) than in other migrant groups (6·6%, 1·8-11·3; I² =92%). The pooled prevalence of antibiotic-resistant organisms was slightly higher in high-migrant community settings (33·1%, 11·1-55·1; I² =96%) than in migrants in hospitals (24·3%, 16·1-32·6; I² =98%). We did not find evidence of high rates of transmission of AMR from migrant to host populations.

Interpretation

Migrants are exposed to conditions favouring the emergence of drug resistance during transit and in host countries in Europe. Increased antibiotic resistance among refugees and asylum seekers and in high-migrant community settings (such as refugee camps and detention facilities) highlights the need for improved living conditions, access to health care, and initiatives to facilitate detection of and appropriate high-quality treatment for antibiotic-resistant infections during transit and in host countries. Protocols for the prevention and control of infection and for antibiotic surveillance need to be integrated in all aspects of health care, which should be accessible for all migrant groups, and should target determinants of AMR before, during, and after migration.

Funding

UK National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, the Wellcome Trust, and UK National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-associated Infections and Antimictobial Resistance at Imperial College London.

SUBMITTER: Nellums LB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6032478 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFrequent use of antibiotics in patients with COVID-19 threatens to exacerbate antimicrobial resistance. We aimed to establish the prevalence and predictors of bacterial infections and antimicrobial resistance in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of bacterial co-infections (identified within ≤48 h of presentation) and secondary infections (>48 h after presentation) in outpatients or hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Research Database to identify cohort studies, case series, case-control trials, and randomised controlled trials with populations of at least 50 patients published in any language between Jan 1, 2019, and Dec 1, 2021. Reviews, editorials, letters, pre-prints, and conference proceedings were excluded, as were studies in which bacterial infection was not microbiologically confirmed (or confirmed via nasopharyngeal swab only). We screened titles and abstracts of papers identified by our search, and then assessed the full text of potentially relevant articles. We reported the pooled prevalence of bacterial infections and antimicrobial resistance by doing a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. Our primary outcomes were the prevalence of bacterial co-infection and secondary infection, and the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens among patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and bacterial infections. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021297344).FindingsWe included 148 studies of 362 976 patients, which were done between December, 2019, and May, 2021. The prevalence of bacterial co-infection was 5·3% (95% CI 3·8-7·4), whereas the prevalence of secondary bacterial infection was 18·4% (14·0-23·7). 42 (28%) studies included comprehensive data for the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among bacterial infections. Among people with bacterial infections, the proportion of infections that were resistant to antimicrobials was 60·8% (95% CI 38·6-79·3), and the proportion of isolates that were resistant was 37·5% (26·9-49·5). Heterogeneity in the reported prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in organisms was substantial (I2=95%).InterpretationAlthough infrequently assessed, antimicrobial resistance is highly prevalent in patients with COVID-19 and bacterial infections. Future research and surveillance assessing the effect of COVID-19 on antimicrobial resistance at the patient and population level are urgently needed.FundingWHO.

Project description:BackgroundClostridioides (Clostridium) difficile is an important pathogen of healthcare- associated diarrhea, however, an increase in the occurrence of C. difficile infection (CDI) outside hospital settings has been reported. The accumulation of antimicrobial resistance in C. difficile can increase the risk of CDI development and/or its spread. The limited number of antimicrobials for the treatment of CDI is matter of some concern.ObjectivesIn order to summarize the data on antimicrobial resistance to C. difficile derived from humans, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.MethodsWe searched five bibliographic databases: (MEDLINE [PubMed], Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) for studies that focused on antimicrobial susceptibility testing in C. difficile and were published between 1992 and 2019. The weighted pooled resistance (WPR) for each antimicrobial agent was calculated using a random- effects model.ResultsA total of 111 studies were included. The WPR for metronidazole and vancomycin was 1.0% (95% CI 0-3%) and 1% (95% CI 0-2%) for the breakpoint > 2 mg/L and 0% (95% CI 0%) for breakpoint ≥32 μg/ml. Rifampin and tigecycline had a WPRs of 37.0% (95% CI 18-58%) and 1% (95% CI 0-3%), respectively. The WPRs for the other antimicrobials were as follows: ciprofloxacin 95% (95% CI 85-100%), moxifloxacin 32% (95% CI 25-40%), clindamycin 59% (95% CI 53-65%), amoxicillin/clavulanate 0% (0-0%), piperacillin/tazobactam 0% (0-0%) and ceftriaxone 47% (95% CI 29-65%). Tetracycline had a WPR 20% (95% CI 14-27%) and meropenem showed 0% (95% CI 0-1%); resistance to fidaxomicin was reported in one isolate (0.08%).ConclusionResistance to metronidazole, vancomycin, fidaxomicin, meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam is reported rarely. From the alternative CDI drug treatments, tigecycline had a lower resistance rate than rifampin. The high-risk antimicrobials for CDI development showed a high level of resistance, the highest was seen in the second generation of fluoroquinolones and clindamycin; amoxicillin/clavulanate showed almost no resistance. Tetracycline resistance was present in one fifth of human clinical C. difficile isolates.