1.Ethical considerations on the development and application of artificial intelligence in public health
Chunyu RONG ; Dongni HONG ; Baoyue WANG ; Junwei WANG ; Yunmeng WANG ; Xianglong LI ; Siyu DING ; Ping ZHOU
Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine 2024;36(5):504-510
With the development of digital technology, an increasing number of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are being applied in the field of public health, significantly improving the efficiency of healthcare systems. However, such technological advancement also introduces a series of ethical risks. In this article, we conducted a systematic review by searching nine domestic and international databases and analyzing the ethical issues related to AI in public health, ultimately including 158 articles. Based on the analysis of the included literature, ethical risks were categorized into four aspects: data, algorithms, rights and responsibilities, and social impact. A total of 15 key issues were identified, among which privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, data security, and fairness, justice and inclusion emerged as the most prominent issues. The ethical challenges posed by AI in the field of public health cannot be ignored, and it is necessary to formulate ethical guidelines and practical recommendations for AI in this field, establish sound regulatory and review mechanisms, thereby ensuring the healthy development of AI research in public health.
2.Quality monitoring indicator system in blood banks of Shandong: applied in blood donation services, component preparation and blood supply process
Yuqing WU ; Hong ZHOU ; Zhijie ZHANG ; Zhiquan RONG ; Xuemei LI ; Zhe SONG ; Shuhong ZHAO ; Zhongsi YANG ; Qun LIU ; Lin ZHU ; Xiaojuan FAN ; Shuli SUN ; Wei ZHANG ; Jinyu HAN ; Haiyan HUANG ; Guangcai LIU ; Ping CHEN ; Xianwu AN ; Hui ZHANG ; Junxia REN ; Xuejing LI ; Chenxi YANG ; Bo ZHOU ; Hui YE ; Mingming QIAO ; Hua SHEN ; Dunzhu GONGJUE ; Yunlong ZHUANG
Chinese Journal of Blood Transfusion 2024;37(3):275-282
【Objective】 To establish an effective quality indicator monitoring system, scientifically and objectively evaluate the quality management level of blood banks, and achieve continuous improvement of quality management in blood bank. 【Methods】 A quality monitoring indicator system that covers the whole process of blood collection and supply was established, the questionnaire of Quality Monitoring Indicators for Blood Collection and Supply Process with clear definition of indicators and calculation formulas was distributed to 17 blood banks in Shandong. Statistical analysis of 21 quality monitoring indicators in terms of blood donation service (10 indicators), blood component preparation (7 indicators ), and blood supply (4 indicators) from each blood bank from January to December 2022 were conducted using SPSS25.0 software The differences in quality monitoring indicators of blood banks of different scales were analyzed. 【Results】 The average values of quality monitoring indicators for blood donation service process of 17 blood banks were as follows: 44.66% (2 233/5 000) of regular donors proportion, 0.22% (11/50) of adverse reactions incidence, 0.46% (23/5 000) of non-standard whole blood collection rate, 0.052% (13/25 000) of missed HBsAg screening rate, 99.42% (4 971/5 000) of first, puncture successful rate, 86.49% (173/200) of double platelet collection rate, 66.50% (133/200) of 400 mL whole blood collection rate, 99.25% (397/400) of donor satisfaction rate, 82.68% (2 067/2 500) of use rate of whole blood collection bags with bypass system with sample tube, and 1 case of occupational exposure in blood collection.There was a strong positive correlation between the proportion of regular blood donors and the collection rate of 400 mL whole blood (P<0.05). The platelet collection rate, incidence of adverse reactions to blood donation, and non-standard whole blood collection rate in large blood banks were significantly lower than those in medium and small blood banks (P<0.05). The average quality monitoring indicators for blood component preparation process of 17 blood banks were as follows: the leakage rate of blood component preparation bags was 0.03% (3/10 000), the discarding rate of lipemic blood was 3.05% (61/2 000), the discarding rate of hemolysis blood was 0.13%(13/10 000). 0.06 case had labeling errors, 8 bags had blood catheter leaks, 2.76 bags had blood puncture/connection leaks, and 0.59 cases had non-conforming consumables. The discarding rate of hemolysis blood of large blood banks was significantly lower than that of medium and small blood banks (P<0.05), and the discarding rate of lipemic blood of large and medium blood banks was significantly lower than that of small blood banks (P<0.05). The average values of quality monitoring indicators for blood supply process of 17 blood banks were as follows: the discarding rate of expired blood was 0.023% (23/100 000), the leakage rate during storage and distribution was of 0.009%(9/100 000), the discarding rate of returned blood was 0.106% (53/50 000), the service satisfaction of hospitals was 99.16% (2 479/2 500). The leakage rate of blood components during storage and distribution was statistically different with that of blood component preparation bags between different blood banks (P<0.05). There were statistically significant differences in the proportion of regular blood donors, incidence of adverse reactions, non-standard whole blood collection rate, 400 mL whole blood collection rate, double platelet collection rate, the blood bag leakage rate during preparation process, the blood components leakage rate during storage and distribution as well as the discarding rate of lipemic blood, hemolysis blood, expired blood and returned blood among large, medium and small blood banks (all P<0.05). 【Conclusion】 The establishment of a quality monitoring indicator system for blood donation services, blood component preparation and blood supply processes in Shandong has good applicability, feasibility and effectiveness. It can objectively evaluate the quality management level, facilitate the continuous improvement of the quality management system, promote the homogenization of blood management in the province and lay the foundation for future comprehensive evaluation of blood banks.
3.Clinical trial of brexpiprazole in the treatment of adults with acute schizophrenia
Shu-Zhe ZHOU ; Liang LI ; Dong YANG ; Jin-Guo ZHAI ; Tao JIANG ; Yu-Zhong SHI ; Bin WU ; Xiang-Ping WU ; Ke-Qing LI ; Tie-Bang LIU ; Jie LI ; Shi-You TANG ; Li-Li WANG ; Xue-Yi WANG ; Yun-Long TAN ; Qi LIU ; Uki MOTOMICHI ; Ming-Ji XIAN ; Hong-Yan ZHANG
The Chinese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024;40(5):654-658
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of brexpiprazole in treating acute schizophrenia.Methods Patients with schizophrenia were randomly divided into treatment group and control group.The treatment group was given brexpiprozole 2-4 mg·d-1 orally and the control group was given aripiprazole 10-20 mg·d-1orally,both were treated for 6 weeks.Clinical efficacy of the two groups,the response rate at endpoint,the changes from baseline to endpoint of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale(PANSS),Clinical Global Impression-Improvement(CGI-S),Personal and Social Performance scale(PSP),PANSS Positive syndrome subscale,PANSS negative syndrome subscale were compared.The incidence of treatment-related adverse events in two groups were compared.Results There were 184 patients in treatment group and 186 patients in control group.After treatment,the response rates of treatment group and control group were 79.50%(140 cases/184 cases)and 82.40%(150 cases/186 cases),the scores of CGI-I of treatment group and control group were(2.00±1.20)and(1.90±1.01),with no significant difference(all P>0.05).From baseline to Week 6,the mean change of PANSS total score wese(-30.70±16.96)points in treatment group and(-32.20±17.00)points in control group,with no significant difference(P>0.05).The changes of CGI-S scores in treatment group and control group were(-2.00±1.27)and(-1.90±1.22)points,PSP scores were(18.80±14.77)and(19.20±14.55)points,PANSS positive syndrome scores were(-10.30±5.93)and(-10.80±5.81)points,PANSS negative syndrome scores were(-6.80±5.98)and(-7.30±5.15)points,with no significant difference(P>0.05).There was no significant difference in the incidence of treatment-related adverse events between the two group(69.00%vs.64.50%,P>0.05).Conclusion The non-inferiority of Brexpiprazole to aripiprazole was established,with comparable efficacy and acceptability.
4.A national questionnaire survey on endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension in China
Xing WANG ; Bing HU ; Yiling LI ; Zhijie FENG ; Yanjing GAO ; Zhining FAN ; Feng JI ; Bingrong LIU ; Jinhai WANG ; Wenhui ZHANG ; Tong DANG ; Hong XU ; Derun KONG ; Lili YUAN ; Liangbi XU ; Shengjuan HU ; Liangzhi WEN ; Ping YAO ; Yunxiao LIANG ; Xiaodong ZHOU ; Huiling XIANG ; Xiaowei LIU ; Xiaoquan HUANG ; Yinglei MIAO ; Xiaoliang ZHU ; De'an TIAN ; Feihu BAI ; Jitao SONG ; Ligang CHEN ; Yingcai MA ; Yifei HUANG ; Bin WU ; Xiaolong QI
Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy 2024;41(1):43-51
Objective:To investigate the current status of endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension in China, and to provide supporting data and reference for the development of endoscopic treatment.Methods:In this study, initiated by the Liver Health Consortium in China (CHESS), a questionnaire was designed and distributed online to investigate the basic condition of endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension in 2022 in China. Questions included annual number and indication of endoscopic procedures, adherence to guideline for preventing esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB), management and timing of emergent EGVB, management of gastric and isolated varices, and improvement of endoscopic treatment. Proportions of hospitals concerning therapeutic choices to all participant hospitals were calculated. Guideline adherence between secondary and tertiary hospitals were compared by using Chi-square test.Results:A total of 836 hospitals from 31 provinces (anotomous regions and municipalities) participated in the survey. According to the survey, the control of acute EGVB (49.3%, 412/836) and the prevention of recurrent bleeding (38.3%, 320/836) were major indications of endoscopic treatment. For primary [non-selective β-blocker (NSBB) or endoscopic therapies] and secondary prophylaxis (NSBB and endoscopic therapies) of EGVB, adherence to domestic guideline was 72.5% (606/836) and 39.2% (328/836), respectively. There were significant differences in the adherence between secondary and tertiary hospitals in primary prophylaxis of EGVB [71.0% (495/697) VS 79.9% (111/139), χ2=4.11, P=0.033] and secondary prophylaxis of EGVB [41.6% (290/697) VS 27.3% (38/139), χ2=9.31, P=0.002]. A total of 78.2% (654/836) hospitals preferred endoscopic therapies treating acute EGVB, and endoscopic therapy was more likely to be the first choice for treating acute EGVB in tertiary hospitals (82.6%, 576/697) than secondary hospitals [56.1% (78/139), χ2=46.33, P<0.001]. The optimal timing was usually within 12 hours (48.5%, 317/654) and 12-24 hours (36.9%, 241/654) after the bleeding. Regarding the management of gastroesophageal varices type 2 and isolated gastric varices type 1, most hospitals used cyanoacrylate injection in combination with sclerotherapy [48.2% (403/836) and 29.9% (250/836), respectively], but substantial proportions of hospitals preferred clip-assisted therapies [12.4% (104/836) and 26.4% (221/836), respectively]. Improving the skills of endoscopic doctors (84.2%, 704/836), and enhancing the precision of pre-procedure evaluation and quality of multidisciplinary team (78.9%, 660/836) were considered urgent needs in the development of endoscopic treatment. Conclusion:A variety of endoscopic treatments for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension are implemented nationwide. Participant hospitals are active to perform emergent endoscopy for acute EGVB, but are inadequate in following recommendations regarding primary and secondary prophylaxis of EGVB. Moreover, the selection of endoscopic procedures for gastric varices differs greatly among hospitals.
5.Efficacy and safety of recombinant human anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody injection(F61 injection)in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 combined with renal damage:a randomized controlled exploratory clinical study
Ding-Hua CHEN ; Chao-Fan LI ; Yue NIU ; Li ZHANG ; Yong WANG ; Zhe FENG ; Han-Yu ZHU ; Jian-Hui ZHOU ; Zhe-Yi DONG ; Shu-Wei DUAN ; Hong WANG ; Meng-Jie HUANG ; Yuan-Da WANG ; Shuo-Yuan CONG ; Sai PAN ; Jing ZHOU ; Xue-Feng SUN ; Guang-Yan CAI ; Ping LI ; Xiang-Mei CHEN
Chinese Journal of Infection Control 2024;23(3):257-264
Objective To explore the efficacy and safety of recombinant human anti-severe acute respiratory syn-drome coronavirus 2(anti-SARS-CoV-2)monoclonal antibody injection(F61 injection)in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19)combined with renal damage.Methods Patients with COVID-19 and renal damage who visited the PLA General Hospital from January to February 2023 were selected.Subjects were randomly divided into two groups.Control group was treated with conventional anti-COVID-19 therapy,while trial group was treated with conventional anti-COVID-19 therapy combined with F61 injection.A 15-day follow-up was conducted after drug administration.Clinical symptoms,laboratory tests,electrocardiogram,and chest CT of pa-tients were performed to analyze the efficacy and safety of F61 injection.Results Twelve subjects(7 in trial group and 5 in control group)were included in study.Neither group had any clinical progression or death cases.The ave-rage time for negative conversion of nucleic acid of SARS-CoV-2 in control group and trial group were 3.2 days and 1.57 days(P=0.046),respectively.The scores of COVID-19 related target symptom in the trial group on the 3rd and 5th day after medication were both lower than those of the control group(both P<0.05).According to the clinical staging and World Health Organization 10-point graded disease progression scale,both groups of subjects improved but didn't show statistical differences(P>0.05).For safety,trial group didn't present any infusion-re-lated adverse event.Subjects in both groups demonstrated varying degrees of elevated blood glucose,elevated urine glucose,elevated urobilinogen,positive urine casts,and cardiac arrhythmia,but the differences were not statistica-lly significant(all P>0.05).Conclusion F61 injection has initially demonstrated safety and clinical benefit in trea-ting patients with COVID-19 combined with renal damage.As the domestically produced drug,it has good clinical accessibility and may provide more options for clinical practice.
6.The construction and its implication of the cancer life-cycle prevention and control system in Japan
Dong-Ni HONG ; Sheng WANG ; Xian-Ji WANG ; Chun-Feng WU ; Chun-Yu RONG ; Ping ZHOU
Chinese Journal of Health Policy 2024;17(2):72-78
As the country with the largest number of new cancer cases and deaths,China faces a serious situation with a large cancer population base,low relative survival rate,and low adherence to cancer screening.Neighboring Japan,which has the longest life expectancy in the world,has a much higher relative survival rate than China,despite having a similarly high cancer rate,due to its well-established system of cancer prevention and control.Being an Asian country,the major prevalent cancers in China and Japan are similar in spectrum and can be referred to more.This article introduces the construction of Japan's cancer life-cycle prevention and control system of"cancer prevention","cancer care",and"coexistence with cancer"starting from the three major goals of Japan's cancer prevention and control program,and focuses on the improvement of cancer screening in Japan and the improvement of cancer survival in China.It also highlights the means and methods used to increase the cancer screening rate in Japan,with a view to providing suggestions for cancer prevention and control in China.
7.Study of phenylpropanoids from Tripterygium hypoglaucum
Zhi-qi LIN ; Hong-bo ZHU ; Tang ZHOU ; Ji WANG ; Rong-ping ZHANG ; Xing-long CHEN
Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica 2024;59(6):1730-1740
This paper aimed to study phenylpropanoids of
8.Surveillance of bacterial resistance in tertiary hospitals across China:results of CHINET Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Program in 2022
Yan GUO ; Fupin HU ; Demei ZHU ; Fu WANG ; Xiaofei JIANG ; Yingchun XU ; Xiaojiang ZHANG ; Fengbo ZHANG ; Ping JI ; Yi XIE ; Yuling XIAO ; Chuanqing WANG ; Pan FU ; Yuanhong XU ; Ying HUANG ; Ziyong SUN ; Zhongju CHEN ; Jingyong SUN ; Qing CHEN ; Yunzhuo CHU ; Sufei TIAN ; Zhidong HU ; Jin LI ; Yunsong YU ; Jie LIN ; Bin SHAN ; Yunmin XU ; Sufang GUO ; Yanyan WANG ; Lianhua WEI ; Keke LI ; Hong ZHANG ; Fen PAN ; Yunjian HU ; Xiaoman AI ; Chao ZHUO ; Danhong SU ; Dawen GUO ; Jinying ZHAO ; Hua YU ; Xiangning HUANG ; Wen'en LIU ; Yanming LI ; Yan JIN ; Chunhong SHAO ; Xuesong XU ; Wei LI ; Shanmei WANG ; Yafei CHU ; Lixia ZHANG ; Juan MA ; Shuping ZHOU ; Yan ZHOU ; Lei ZHU ; Jinhua MENG ; Fang DONG ; Zhiyong LÜ ; Fangfang HU ; Han SHEN ; Wanqing ZHOU ; Wei JIA ; Gang LI ; Jinsong WU ; Yuemei LU ; Jihong LI ; Qian SUN ; Jinju DUAN ; Jianbang KANG ; Xiaobo MA ; Yanqing ZHENG ; Ruyi GUO ; Yan ZHU ; Yunsheng CHEN ; Qing MENG ; Shifu WANG ; Xuefei HU ; Wenhui HUANG ; Juan LI ; Quangui SHI ; Juan YANG ; Abulimiti REZIWAGULI ; Lili HUANG ; Xuejun SHAO ; Xiaoyan REN ; Dong LI ; Qun ZHANG ; Xue CHEN ; Rihai LI ; Jieli XU ; Kaijie GAO ; Lu XU ; Lin LIN ; Zhuo ZHANG ; Jianlong LIU ; Min FU ; Yinghui GUO ; Wenchao ZHANG ; Zengguo WANG ; Kai JIA ; Yun XIA ; Shan SUN ; Huimin YANG ; Yan MIAO ; Mingming ZHOU ; Shihai ZHANG ; Hongjuan LIU ; Nan CHEN ; Chan LI ; Jilu SHEN ; Wanqi MEN ; Peng WANG ; Xiaowei ZHANG ; Yanyan LIU ; Yong AN
Chinese Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy 2024;24(3):277-286
Objective To monitor the susceptibility of clinical isolates to antimicrobial agents in tertiary hospitals in major regions of China in 2022.Methods Clinical isolates from 58 hospitals in China were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility using a unified protocol based on disc diffusion method or automated testing systems.Results were interpreted using the 2022 Clinical &Laboratory Standards Institute(CLSI)breakpoints.Results A total of 318 013 clinical isolates were collected from January 1,2022 to December 31,2022,of which 29.5%were gram-positive and 70.5%were gram-negative.The prevalence of methicillin-resistant strains in Staphylococcus aureus,Staphylococcus epidermidis and other coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species(excluding Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and Staphylococcus schleiferi)was 28.3%,76.7%and 77.9%,respectively.Overall,94.0%of MRSA strains were susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and 90.8%of MRSE strains were susceptible to rifampicin.No vancomycin-resistant strains were found.Enterococcus faecalis showed significantly lower resistance rates to most antimicrobial agents tested than Enterococcus faecium.A few vancomycin-resistant strains were identified in both E.faecalis and E.faecium.The prevalence of penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae was 94.2%in the isolates from children and 95.7%in the isolates from adults.The resistance rate to carbapenems was lower than 13.1%in most Enterobacterales species except for Klebsiella,21.7%-23.1%of which were resistant to carbapenems.Most Enterobacterales isolates were highly susceptible to tigecycline,colistin and polymyxin B,with resistance rates ranging from 0.1%to 13.3%.The prevalence of meropenem-resistant strains decreased from 23.5%in 2019 to 18.0%in 2022 in Pseudomonas aeruginosa,and decreased from 79.0%in 2019 to 72.5%in 2022 in Acinetobacter baumannii.Conclusions The resistance of clinical isolates to the commonly used antimicrobial agents is still increasing in tertiary hospitals.However,the prevalence of important carbapenem-resistant organisms such as carbapenem-resistant K.pneumoniae,P.aeruginosa,and A.baumannii showed a downward trend in recent years.This finding suggests that the strategy of combining antimicrobial resistance surveillance with multidisciplinary concerted action works well in curbing the spread of resistant bacteria.
9.Changing distribution and resistance profiles of common pathogens isolated from urine in the CHINET Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Program,2015-2021
Yanming LI ; Mingxiang ZOU ; Wen'en LIU ; Yang YANG ; Fupin HU ; Demei ZHU ; Yingchun XU ; Xiaojiang ZHANG ; Fengbo ZHANG ; Ping JI ; Yi XIE ; Mei KANG ; Chuanqing WANG ; Pan FU ; Yuanhong XU ; Ying HUANG ; Ziyong SUN ; Zhongju CHEN ; Yuxing NI ; Jingyong SUN ; Yunzhuo CHU ; Sufei TIAN ; Zhidong HU ; Jin LI ; Yunsong YU ; Jie LIN ; Bin SHAN ; Yan DU ; Sufang GUO ; Lianhua WEI ; Fengmei ZOU ; Hong ZHANG ; Chun WANG ; Yunjian HU ; Xiaoman AI ; Chao ZHUO ; Danhong SU ; Dawen GUO ; Jinying ZHAO ; Hua YU ; Xiangning HUANG ; Yan JIN ; Chunhong SHAO ; Xuesong XU ; Chao YAN ; Shanmei WANG ; Yafei CHU ; Lixia ZHANG ; Juan MA ; Shuping ZHOU ; Yan ZHOU ; Lei ZHU ; Jinhua MENG ; Fang DONG ; Zhiyong LÜ ; Fangfang HU ; Han SHEN ; Wanqing ZHOU ; Wei JIA ; Gang LI ; Jinsong WU ; Yuemei LU ; Jihong LI ; Jinju DUAN ; Jianbang KANG ; Xiaobo MA ; Yanping ZHENG ; Ruyi GUO ; Yan ZHU ; Yunsheng CHEN ; Qing MENG ; Shifu WANG ; Xuefei HU ; Jilu SHEN ; Ruizhong WANG ; Hua FANG ; Bixia YU ; Yong ZHAO ; Ping GONG ; Kaizhen WENG ; Yirong ZHANG ; Jiangshan LIU ; Longfeng LIAO ; Hongqin GU ; Lin JIANG ; Wen HE ; Shunhong XUE ; Jiao FENG ; Chunlei YUE
Chinese Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy 2024;24(3):287-299
Objective To investigate the distribution and antimicrobial resistance profiles of the common pathogens isolated from urine from 2015 to 2021 in the CHINET Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Program.Methods The bacterial strains were isolated from urine and identified routinely in 51 hospitals across China in the CHINET Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Program from 2015 to 2021.Antimicrobial susceptibility was determined by Kirby-Bauer method,automatic microbiological analysis system and E-test according to the unified protocol.Results A total of 261 893 nonduplicate strains were isolated from urine specimen from 2015 to 2021,of which gram-positive bacteria accounted for 23.8%(62 219/261 893),and gram-negative bacteria 76.2%(199 674/261 893).The most common species were E.coli(46.7%),E.faecium(10.4%),K.pneumoniae(9.8%),E.faecalis(8.7%),P.mirabilis(3.5%),P.aeruginosa(3.4%),SS.agalactiae(2.6%),and E.cloacae(2.1%).The strains were more frequently isolated from inpatients versus outpatients and emergency patients,from females versus males,and from adults versus children.The prevalence of ESBLs-producing strains in E.coli,K.pneumoniae and P.mirabilis was 53.2%,52.8%and 37.0%,respectively.The prevalence of carbapenem-resistant strains in E.coli,K.pneumoniae,P.aeruginosa and A.baumannii was 1.7%,18.5%,16.4%,and 40.3%,respectively.Lower than 10%of the E.faecalis isolates were resistant to ampicillin,nitrofurantoin,linezolid,vancomycin,teicoplanin and fosfomycin.More than 90%of the E.faecium isolates were ressitant to ampicillin,levofloxacin and erythromycin.The percentage of strains resistant to vancomycin,linezolid or teicoplanin was<2%.The E.coli,K.pneumoniae,P.aeruginosa and A.baumannii strains isolated from ICU inpatients showed significantly higher resistance rates than the corresponding strains isolated from outpatients and non-ICU inpatients.Conclusions E.coli,Enterococcus and K.pneumoniae are the most common pathogens in urinary tract infection.The bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance of urinary isolates vary with different populations.More attention should be paid to antimicrobial resistance surveillance and reduce the irrational use of antimicrobial agents.
10.Changing resistance profiles of Enterococcus in hospitals across China:results from the CHINET Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Program,2015-2021
Na CHEN ; Ping JI ; Yang YANG ; Fupin HU ; Demei ZHU ; Yingchun XU ; Xiaojiang ZHANG ; Yi XIE ; Mei KANG ; Chuanqing WANG ; Pan FU ; Yuanhong XU ; Ying HUANG ; Ziyong SUN ; Zhongju CHEN ; Yuxing NI ; Jingyong SUN ; Yunzhuo CHU ; Sufei TIAN ; Zhidong HU ; Jin LI ; Yunsong YU ; Jie LIN ; Bin SHAN ; Yan DU ; Sufang GUO ; Lianhua WEI ; Fengmei ZOU ; Hong ZHANG ; Chun WANG ; Yunjian HU ; Xiaoman AI ; Chao ZHUO ; Danhong SU ; Dawen GUO ; Jinying ZHAO ; Hua YU ; Xiangning HUANG ; Wen'en LIU ; Yanming LI ; Yan JIN ; Chunhong SHAO ; Xuesong XU ; Chao YAN ; Shanmei WANG ; Yafei CHU ; Lixia ZHANG ; Juan MA ; Shuping ZHOU ; Yan ZHOU ; Lei ZHU ; Jinhua MENG ; Fang DONG ; Zhiyong LÜ ; Fangfang HU ; Han SHEN ; Wanqing ZHOU ; Wei JIA ; Gang LI ; Jinsong WU ; Yuemei LU ; Jihong LI ; Jinju DUAN ; Jianbang KANG ; Xiaobo MA ; Yanping ZHENG ; Ruyi GUO ; Yan ZHU ; Yunsheng CHEN ; Qing MENG ; Shifu WANG ; Xuefei HU ; Jilu SHEN ; Ruizhong WANG ; Hua FANG ; Bixia YU ; Yong ZHAO ; Ping GONG ; Kaizhen WEN ; Yirong ZHANG ; Jiangshan LIU ; Longfeng LIAO ; Hongqin GU ; Lin JIANG ; Wen HE ; Shunhong XUE ; Jiao FENG ; Chunlei YUE
Chinese Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy 2024;24(3):300-308
Objective To understand the distribution and changing resistance profiles of clinical isolates of Enterococcus in hospitals across China from 2015 to 2021.Methods Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was conducted for the clinical isolates of Enterococcus according to the unified protocol of CHINET program by automated systems,Kirby-Bauer method,or E-test strip.The results were interpreted according to the Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute(CLSI)breakpoints in 2021.WHONET 5.6 software was used for statistical analysis.Results A total of 124 565 strains of Enterococcus were isolated during the 7-year period,mainly including Enterococcus faecalis(50.7%)and Enterococcus faecalis(41.5%).The strains were mainly isolated from urinary tract specimens(46.9%±2.6%),and primarily from the patients in the department of internal medicine,surgery and ICU.E.faecium and E.faecalis strains showed low level resistance rate to vancomycin,teicoplanin and linezolid(≤3.6%).The prevalence of vancomycin-resistant E.faecalis and E.faecium was 0.1%and 1.3%,respectively.The prevalence of linezolid-resistant E.faecalis increased from 0.7%in 2015 to 3.4%in 2021,while the prevalence of linezolid-resistant E.faecium was 0.3%.Conclusions The clinical isolates of Enterococcus were still highly susceptible to vancomycin,teicoplanin,and linezolid,evidenced by a low resistance rate.However,the prevalence of linezolid-resistant E.faecalis was increasing during the 7-year period.It is necessary to strengthen antimicrobial resistance surveillance to effectively identify the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and curb the spread of resistant pathogens.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail