4.3 Review

Aeromonas in Arab countries: 1995-2014

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cimid.2015.07.002

关键词

Aeromonas; Arab countries; Humans; Animals; Food; Water; Molecular testing methods; Antimicrobial resistance and treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this review is to provide information on the prevalence, clinical syndromes, and antimicrobial resistance and therapy of Aeromonas spp. infections in Arab countries. The data were obtained by an English language literature search from 1995 to 2014 of Medline and PubMed for papers using the search terms Aeromonas + name of Arab country (i.e. Algeria, Egypt, etc.). Additional data were obtained from a Google search using the aforementioned terms. The organisms have been reported from diarrheal children, patients with cholera-like diarrhea, an outbreak of acute gastroenteritis and from different types of animals, foods and water source in several Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa with predominance of A. hydrophila, A. caviae and A. sobria. Using molecular techniques few studies reported genes encoding several toxins from aeromonads isolated from different sources. Among the antimicrobials examined in the present review third generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides showed excellent activity and can be employed in the treatment of Aeromonas-associated human infections in Arabic countries. Whenever possible, treatment should be guided by the susceptibility testing results of the isolated organism. In the future, studies employing molecular testing methods are required to provide data on circulating genospecies and their modes of transmission in the community, and on their mechanisms of resistance to antimicrobials. Microbiology laboratories and research centers are encouraged to look for these organisms in clinical, food and water sources to attain a better understanding of the public health risks from these organisms in Arab countries. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据