Spread of CTX-M-15 Extended Spectrum β-lactamases Encoding Genes Among Enterobacteriaceae in the Middle Eastern Region

The CTX-M type enzymes have become the most prevalent extended spectrumβ-lactamases (ESBLs) worldwide. Among the CTX-M type enzymes, CTX-M-15 is themost widespread and has been reported from all continents. It has been recoveredfrom different Enterobacteriaceae and has been isolated from both community andhospital acquired infections. This review primarily highlights the prevalence of CTXM-15 in addition to other ESBLs in the Middle East. Detection of any type of ESBL isof importance in therapeutic treatment

Genotypes and serotype distribution of macrolide resistant invasive and non- invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates from Lebanon

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study determined macrolide resistance genotypes in clinical isolates of <it>Streptococcus pneumoniae </it>from multiple medical centers in Lebanon and assessed the serotype distribution in relation to these mechanism(s) of resistance and the source of isolate recovery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Forty four macrolide resistant and 21 macrolide susceptible <it>S. pneumoniae </it>clinical isolates were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility according to CLSI guidelines (2008) and underwent molecular characterization. Serotyping of these isolates was performed by Multiplex PCR-based serotype deduction using CDC protocols. PCR amplification of macrolide resistant <it>erm </it>(encoding methylase) and <it>mef </it>(encoding macrolide efflux pump protein) genes was carried out.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among 44 isolates resistant to erythromycin, 35 were resistant to penicillin and 18 to ceftriaxone. Examination of 44 macrolide resistant isolates by PCR showed that 16 isolates harbored the <it>erm</it>(B) gene, 8 isolates harbored the <it>mef </it>gene, and 14 isolates harbored both the <it>erm</it>(B) and <it>mef </it>genes. There was no amplification by PCR of the <it>erm</it>(B) or <it>mef </it>genes in 6 isolates. Seven different capsular serotypes 2, 9V/9A,12F, 14,19A, 19F, and 23, were detected by multiplex PCR serotype deduction in 35 of 44 macrolide resistant isolates, with 19F being the most prevalent serotype. With the exception of serotype 2, all serotypes were invasive. Isolates belonging to the invasive serotypes 14 and 19F harbored both <it>erm</it>(B) and <it>mef </it>genes. Nine of the 44 macrolide resistant isolates were non-serotypable by our protocols.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Macrolide resistance in <it>S. pneumoniae </it>in Lebanon is mainly through target site modification but is also mediated through efflux pumps, with serotype 19F having dual resistance and being the most prevalent and invasive.</p

Readiness of healthcare providers for eHealth: the case from primary healthcare centers in Lebanon

Abstract Background eHealth can positively impact the efficiency and quality of healthcare services. Its potential benefits extend to the patient, healthcare provider, and organization. Primary healthcare (PHC) settings may particularly benefit from eHealth. In these settings, healthcare provider readiness is key to successful eHealth implementation. Accordingly, it is necessary to explore the potential readiness of providers to use eHealth tools. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the readiness of healthcare providers working in PHC centers in Lebanon to use eHealth tools. Methods A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess participants’ socio-demographics, computer use, literacy, and access, and participants’ readiness for eHealth implementation (appropriateness, management support, change efficacy, personal beneficence). The study included primary healthcare providers (physicians, nurses, other providers) working in 22 PHC centers distributed across Lebanon. Descriptive and bivariate analyses (ANOVA, independent t-test, Kruskal Wallis, Tamhane’s T2) were used to compare participant characteristics to the level of readiness for the implementation of eHealth. Results Of the 541 questionnaires, 213 were completed (response rate: 39.4 %). The majority of participants were physicians (46.9 %), and nurses (26.8 %). Most physicians (54.0 %), nurses (61.4 %), and other providers (50.9 %) felt comfortable using computers, and had access to computers at their PHC center (physicians: 77.0 %, nurses: 87.7 %, others: 92.5 %). Frequency of computer use varied. The study found a significant difference for personal beneficence, management support, and change efficacy among different healthcare providers, and relative to participants’ level of comfort using computers. There was a significant difference by level of comfort using computers and appropriateness. A significant difference was also found between those with access to computers in relation to personal beneficence and change efficacy; and between frequency of computer use and change efficacy. Conclusion The implementation of eHealth cannot be achieved without the readiness of healthcare providers. This study demonstrates that the majority of healthcare providers at PHC centers across Lebanon are ready for eHealth implementation. The findings of this study can be considered by decision makers to enhance and scale-up the use of eHealth in PHC centers nationally. Efforts should be directed towards capacity building for healthcare providers