Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense
Open Access

Antibiotics; Streptococci; bacterial

Introduction

Numerous bacteria that have the capacity to cause illnesses and diseases have been living together with humans for a long time. There was an improvement in the treatment of bacterial infections as a result of the advent of Penicillin in the early 1940s. Most naturally occurring antibiotics are obtained from Actinomycetes[1]. Bacteria are becoming increasingly shrewd by displaying various forms of resistance today, despite the ongoing battle to eradicate bacterial infections. According to recent antimicrobial profile research, bacteria that can result in nosocomial and community-acquired illnesses can develop crossresistance to many antibiotic classes. Consequently, this circumstance turns into a clinical threat to people[2]. Most bacterial antibiotic resistance mechanisms are acquired through modification of target genes or plasmid acquisition that encodes resistance genes. These encoded genes may result in lytic enzyme synthesis, altered membrane permeability, efflux activity, and resistance to drugs.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)[3], antibiotic resistance causes more than 20,000 fatalities each year, 2 million illnesses, and costs the US $55 billion annually. Global antibiotic use increased by more than 30% between 2000 and 2010, according to national pharmacy sales data. The usage of antibiotics increased most dramatically in low- and middle-income countries[4].

Antibiotic resistance will always be a significant issue for Ethiopia as one of the LMICs. However, there is no antimicrobial stewardship that aids in the development of a surveillance system for monitoring current antimicrobial use and resistance in Ethiopia[5]. As a result, it is extremely challenging to report on the trend of bacterial antibiotic resistance in Ethiopia. In light of this, the purpose of this systematic review is to focus on the pattern of antibiotic resistance among particular bacterial isolates that can be discovered in various clinical samples in Ethiopia[6].

Eligibility Criteria

Based on the following predetermined inclusion criteria, all available studies and data were included:

(1) Should be published and written in English,

(2) Must specify the range of antibiotic resistance according to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guideline, and

(3) Must describe the microbiological isolation, identification, and antimicrobial sensitivity test techniques, Studies that used human infection samples (isolated from sick people)

(4) Be prospective cross-sectional studies; and

(5) Be human infection sample studies.

Serology

When dealing with microorganisms that are challenging to culture in a lab, testing for antigen-antibody interactions can be an effective technique to find out whether a bacterial infection is present. The need for several weeks to pass before the body mounts an immunological response to the infection limits serological testing in the majority of instances. For bacterial illnesses like syphilis and brucellosis, which are difficult to develop in culture, serology is particularly helpful. Following serological results is, in fact, occasionally the only approach to assess the success of an infection's therapy. For instance, with syphilis, good treatment may result in a fourfold reduction in the strength of the serological response.

Discussion

Pregnancy only turned up retroactive reports of short case series, a review of 14 instances, and a metanalysis of 12 reported cases. Villette and colleagues conducted a retrospective review on ten patients who had emergency hospitalisation for tubo-ovarian abscess and were found to have endometriosis, whether it had been detected surgically or using routine imaging criteria, with or without endometrioma. Only three out of ten individuals, however, had previously had oocytes removed (16, 57, and 102 days earlier), and the other seven seemed to have acquired endometriomas on their own. With up to 9 days passing between the start of antibiotic therapy and surgery, all patients received laparoscopic drainage as part of their treatment.

According to our findings, gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria's patterns of antibiotic resistance differed throughout the research we looked at, ranging from 0% to 100%. This variance was observed dependent on the kind of isolate, the sample's origin, the infection type, the antibiotic type, and the geographic location of each investigation. Gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria had resistance patterns of 19.8%-92.3% and 10%-87%, respectively, according to a study conducted in Nigeria, despite the fact that it is difficult to discuss the average resistance pattern of gramme positive and gramme negative bacteria with a single study for different antibiotics. Additionally, a research in Gondar, Northwest Ethiopia, found that the percentages of gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria were respectively 20%– 100% and 23.5%–58.8%.

The majority of the bacterial isolates examined in the current analysis were found to be resistant to routinely used antibiotics in Ethiopia. The following scientific justifications could be the cause, according to some theories: Due to the emergence of resistance genes in the bacterial genome, many antibacterial medicines that were once effective are no longer employed.

A spontaneous mutation in the bacterial DNA or long-term natural selection in the environment are two ways that resistance genes can evolve. Almost every antibiotic that has been developed has reported on the resistant pattern.

Conclusion

Most bacterial isolates were extremely ampicillin resistant. Compared to other isolates, conjunctival swab isolates were very sensitive to several antibiotics. Numerous antibiotics were effective against Neisseria gonorrhoea, S. typhimurium, and S. Virchow. M. tuberculosis has an overall resistance to ant tuberculosis medicines that ranges from 0% to 32.6%. These findings should be carefully interpreted, but they also call for further examination in follow-up research given the limitations of the current investigation.

Acknowledgement

The participants' complete cooperation is appreciated by the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The author has no known conflicts of interested associated with this paper.

1. Brosens I, Gordts S, Puttemans p, Benagiano G (2014) Pathophysiology proposed as the basis for modern management of the ovarian endometrioma. Reproductive Biomed Online 14: 228-235.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Jadoul P, Kitajima M, Donnez O, Squifflet J, Donnez J (2012) Surgical treatment of ovarian endometriomas: state of the art.Fertil Sterili 98: 556-563.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Villette C, Bourret A, Santulli P, Gayet V, Chapron C (2016) Risks of tubo-ovarian abscess in cases of endometrioma and assisted reproductive technologies are both under- and overreported.Ferti Steri 106: 410-415.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Garcia JAVelasco, Somigliana E (2009) Management of endometriomas in women requiring IVF: to touch or not to touch.Human Repro 24: 496-501.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Busacca M, Vignali (2009) Endometrioma excision and ovarian reserve: a dangerous relation. JMini Inv Gyne 16: 142-148.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Vigano P, Corti L, Berlanda N (2015) Beyond infertility: obstetrical and postpartum complications associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis. Ferti Steri 104: 802-812, 2015.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref