Next Article in Journal
Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Resistance of Uropathogens in a Tertiary Care Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A One-Year Retrospective Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Evidence of Toxoplasma gondii in Neural and Cardiac Tissues of Wild Rodents in Lithuania
Previous Article in Special Issue
Antibiotic-Loaded Bioglass 45S5 for the Treatment and Prevention of Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Novel Strategy Against Antimicrobial Resistance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/pathogens14121253
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

High Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens at a Rwandan Tertiary Hospital

by
Charles Muhinda
1,2,
Gad Murenzi
3,
Leena Al-Hassan
4,
Eric Seruyange
1,
Leon Mutesa
2,*,† and
Åsa Gylfe
5,*,†
1
Department of Clinical Laboratory, Rwanda Military Referral and Teaching Hospital, Kigali P.O. Box 3377, Rwanda
2
Center for Human Genetics and Genomics, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, Remera Campus-KG 11 Ave. 47, Kigali P.O. Box 4285, Rwanda
3
Department of Research, Einstein Rwanda Research and Capacity Building Program, Kigali 00250, Rwanda
4
Department of Global Health and Infection, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton BN1 9PS, UK
5
Department of Clinical Microbiology and Umeå Centre for Microbial Research, Umeå University, SE90185 Umeå, Sweden
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Pathogens 2025, 14(12), 1253; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14121253
Submission received: 12 November 2025 / Revised: 4 December 2025 / Accepted: 4 December 2025 / Published: 8 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Resistance in the Post-COVID Era: A Silent Pandemic)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health threat, increasing morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Multi-drug resistant ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter cloacae) cause most hospital-acquired infections. Local data on their resistance profiles remain limited in low-income settings. This study assessed the prevalence and resistance patterns of ESKAPE pathogens isolated from clinical specimens at Rwanda Military Referral and Teaching Hospital. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2022 to January 2023. ESKAPE isolates were identified and tested for antimicrobial susceptibility using the BD Phoenix M50 System. Data on sample type, ward, and demographics were analyzed. Of 744 bacterial findings, 207 (30%) were ESKAPE isolates. After excluding duplicates and non-recovered isolates, 156 were identified as ESKAPE. K. pneumoniae was most common (41%), followed by S. aureus (27%), A. baumannii (13%), P. aeruginosa (11%), and E. cloacae (8%); no E. faecium was detected. Among Gram-negatives, 63% were resistant to third-generation cephalosporins and 32% to carbapenems, with A. baumannii showing highest resistance (85% and 75%). Methicillin-Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was 7%. This first hospital-based study in Rwanda shows high cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance, highlighting the need to strengthen diagnostics and stewardship.

1. Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents a critical challenge to public health, particularly in low-income countries like Rwanda, where healthcare systems are already burdened with limited resources [1,2]. AMR is escalating morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs, especially in regions with restricted access to diagnostic tools and non-functioning antimicrobial stewardship programs (AMS) [3]. Since the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, these drugs have been vital in revolutionizing medicine and improving health outcomes [4]. However, in many countries, the overuse and misuse of antibiotics have accelerated the rise in resistant bacterial infections, posing severe threats to healthcare services [5]. In Rwanda, studies have highlighted inappropriate prescribing practices, lack of access to diagnostic services for pathogen identification and susceptibility testing, and limited implementation of AMS programs [6]. Among the most worrisome pathogens are the ESKAPE group (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter cloacae), which can acquire resistance to all available antibiotics [7]. E. faecium is commonly associated with urinary tract infections, bloodstream infections, and endocarditis, while S. aureus frequently causes skin and soft-tissue infections, surgical-site infections, pneumonia, and bacteremia [8,9]. K. pneumoniae often leads to hospital-acquired pneumonia, urinary tract infections, bloodstream infections, and neonatal sepsis [10]. A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa are important causes of ventilator-associated pneumonia, bloodstream infections, wound infections, and urinary tract infections [8,9,11]. E. cloacae causes urinary tract and device-associated infections [8]. These organisms are major causes of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) and pose serious challenges for patient outcomes and healthcare systems, especially in countries like Rwanda, where the resources to combat AMR are limited [7]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has prioritized tackling ESKAPE pathogens, emphasizing the urgent need for new antibiotics and global surveillance systems [12]. However, comprehensive data on antimicrobial resistance patterns in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), including Rwanda, remain sparse [13]. This lack of data hinders effective monitoring, management, and the development of evidence-based guidelines for controlling AMR in these settings [13]. Research has consistently shown that infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria lead to worse patient outcomes, including longer hospital stays, increased morbidity, and higher mortality rates. Treating AMR infections often requires more expensive and sometimes toxic antibiotics, further straining already overburdened healthcare systems, especially in LMICs [14]. In Rwanda, available studies, although limited, have reported high rates of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing K. pneumoniae and E. coli, as well as increasing prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) [13,15,16]. There is a noticeable gap in research focusing on antibiotic resistance, particularly concerning ESKAPE pathogens in Rwanda. The absence of robust surveillance systems for AMR makes it challenging to fully understand the extent and dynamics of resistance patterns. Thus, context-specific studies are essential to inform local clinical practice and improve patient outcomes [17]. This study aims to evaluate the antimicrobial resistance patterns of ESKAPE pathogens isolated from clinical samples collected at Rwanda Military Referral and Teaching Hospital (RMRTH) between June 2022 and January 2023, providing data to inform locally relevant antibiotic stewardship, infection control, and treatment strategies in Rwanda.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Setting and Study Design

This cross-sectional study collected all putative E. faecium, S. aureus, K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa and E. cloacae in routine bacterial culture at the microbiology unit at RMRTH, Kigali, between June 2022 and January 2023. The isolates were collected from different clinical samples including blood, urine, Cerebral Spinal Fluid (CSF), bronchial samples, and wounds. If more than one isolate was collected from a single patient, it was kept for the study only if it came from a different type of sample, was a different species, or showed a different antibiotic resistance pattern. RMRTH is a specialized healthcare facility offering advanced medical services and training in a diverse clinical environment. It receives both military and civilian patients and has a broad range of specialized wards including advanced surgery, adult and neonatal intensive care. For each stored isolate, information about the patient′s age, sex and type of sample was retrieved from the laboratory information system and stored in an Excel sheet. The total number of cultures with reported positive bacterial growth during the study period was collected from the laboratory log books and information system.

2.2. Bacterial Culture, Identification and Susceptibility Testing

All samples were processed as per the routine microbiological investigations protocol at RMRTH, using phenotypic and biochemical identification methods, including selective agar and analytical profile index 20 (API20E) (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Etoile, France). Upon identification of the ESKAPE species, a loop full of the isolate was suspended in 5 mL sterile nutrient broth and incubated at 37° overnight. Next day, a 1 mL aliquot was transferred to a sterile plastic tube (2 mL) together with 100 µL 99% glycerol, and stored at −80° C until further use. The stored bacterial isolates were analyzed at the King Faisal Hospital, Microbiology laboratory, Kigali, Rwanda, to confirm bacterial species identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), using BD Phoenix M50 Automated Microbiology System, Becton, Dickinson and Company (Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA). Prior to the analysis, samples were thawed at room temperature, and a full wire loop was inoculated in (sterile) nutrient broth and incubated at 37 °C overnight. The following day, a loop from the overnight culture was inoculated on agar plates (McConkey for Gram-negative and blood agar for Gram-positive) and incubated at 37 °C overnight. The BD Phoenix M50 Instrument (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, MD, USA) was used with BD Phoenix NMIC/ID-431 Panel (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, MD, USA) for identification and AST of Gram-negative bacteria and BD Phoenix™ PMIC/ID-111 Panel (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks, MD, USA) for identification and AST of Staphylococcus species.

2.3. Data Analysis

Data were recorded in Excel sheet and analyzed using descriptive statistics to assess patient demographics, sample type, and referring department in relation to bacterial species and antibiotic resistance. AST was categorized as Sensitive, Intermediate, or Resistant (SIR) based on BD Phoenix outputs, which also identified ESBL, carbapenemase producers, and MRSA. For K. pneumoniae and E. cloacae, S categorization for ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and cefazolin was not possible with the used kit, and non-resistant strains were therefore categorized “X”. The BD Phoenix SIR categorizations were consistent with Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) M100 ED35:2025 clinical minimum inhibition concentration (MIC) breakpoints [18].

2.4. Ethical Considerations

An application for full ethical approval was made to the Rwanda Military Hospital Institution Review Board and ethics consent was received on 21 June 2022. The ethics approval number is REF/92/RMH/COMDT/2022.s.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Data

3.1.1. Isolate Characteristics

During the six-month study at RMRTH, 1994 cultures were performed, resulting in 744 positive cultures. From these, 207 ESKAPE isolates were cryo-stored, and 194 were successfully recovered and analyzed using the BD Phoenix system. After excluding 4 duplicate isolates with the same susceptibility patterns from the same patients and the same sample type (pus and tracheal aspirate), ESKAPE isolates from 132 patients were confirmed. Patient age and sex distribution are shown in Table 1.
The most common sample types were urine, pus and tracheal aspirate. There were only 21 blood culture isolates and 5 other sample types. Among the confirmed ESKAPE isolates, Gram-negative bacteria predominated, comprising 114 isolates (73.1%). K. pneumoniae was the most frequently isolated species, representing 64 (41.0%) of ESKAPE isolates, followed by S. aureus 42 (26.9%), A. baumannii 21 (13.5%), P. aeruginosa 17 (10.9%), and E. cloacae from 12 (7.7%) isolates (Table 2).
The 34 non-ESKAPE isolates were identified as other Enterobacterales (n = 14), other Gram-positive cocci (n = 6), Corynebacteria (n = 1), Enterococcus spp (n = 5), E. faecalis (n = 1), A. lwoffii/haemolyticus (n = 2), and other oxidase-positive environmental bacteria (n = 5). ESKAPE isolates were almost exclusively isolated from inpatients as only one isolate was sent from the polyclinic, managing the outpatients. The most common wards were internal medicine (IM) 44 (28.2%) and intensive care unit (ICU) 42 (26.9%) (Table 3).

3.1.2. Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles

Full antimicrobial resistance profiles were achieved for most ESKAPE isolates although some isolates only had SIR categorization for a limited number of antibiotics. As shown in Table 4, Gram-negative isolates showed a low rate of susceptibility to cephalosporins. like ceftriaxone and ceftazidime (Table 4). Among 40 K. pneumoniae isolates resistant to ceftriaxone, 36 (90%) were identified as ESBL producers, and another three were positive for carbapenemase production. One isolate displayed resistance to cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones without defined mechanism.
In E. cloacae, only 3/11 isolates were susceptible to ceftriaxone, but no ESBL or carbapenemase was detected. Carbapenem susceptibility in K. pneumoniae and E. cloacae was high, with >90% of isolates susceptible to meropenem and imipenem, and >80% to ertapenem. In contrast, P. aeruginosa exhibited lower susceptibility rates to carbapenems, with 10/17 and 11/17 isolates susceptible to meropenem and imipenem respectively. Susceptibility to ceftazidime was observed in 9/17 isolates. Carbepenemase production was detected in one P. aeruginosa isolate.
Amikacin remained susceptible in almost all K. pneumoniae, E. cloacae and P. aeruginosa isolates. Susceptibility to ceftolozane–tazobactam was also relatively high (>75%) across these species. In Acinetobacter baumannii, resistance was widespread across β-lactams, aminoglycosides, and fluoroquinolones. However, 14 out of 20 isolates (70%) were susceptible to trimethoprim. Carbapenemase production was detected in 15 of the 20 A. baumannii isolates.
Susceptibility to fluoroquinolones could not be determined in K. pneumoniae and E. cloacae, but resistance to ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin was 24/63 (38%) and 10/63 (16%) respectively in K. pneumoniae and 7/11 (64%) and 0/11 (0%) respectively in E. cloacae. Among the S. aureus isolates, 3/42 were MRSA and resistant to oxacillin, 35/37 were susceptible to clindamycin and there was no resistance to vancomycin (Table 5).

4. Discussion

This study provides insights into the antibiotic susceptibility patterns of ESKAPE pathogens isolated from clinical specimens at a referral hospital in Rwanda, where ESKAPE comprised 30% of culture-positive isolates.
In this study, K. pneumoniae emerged as the most frequently isolated ESKAPE pathogen, accounting for 41% of all ESKAPE isolates. This predominance aligns with findings from local research in Rwanda, which highlight K. pneumoniae as a critical contributor to healthcare-associated infections [19]. For instance, a prospective cohort study at a Rwandan tertiary hospital identified K. pneumoniae among the leading pathogens responsible for surgical site infections (SSIs), emphasizing its impact on patient safety [19]. Our findings are also consistent with regional data, where K. pneumoniae remains a predominant and increasingly resistant pathogen. Studies from Ethiopia and Kenya have reported high rates of ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae with resistance to key antibiotics like ceftriaxone and amoxicillin/clavulanate [19,20]. In Rwanda, a 2021 to 2022 cohort study of internal medicine inpatients found K. pneumoniae and E. coli to be common pathogens, with only 27% of Gram-negative isolates susceptible to ceftriaxone [13]. Our study provides a broader perspective by including isolates from all hospital wards. Furthermore, a multicenter study (2020–2022) involving 1532 bloodstream infections in three tertiary hospitals also reported K. pneumoniae as the most common Gram-negative species. However, it showed lower susceptibility to cephalosporins (<15%) and carbapenems (<80%) compared to our findings [21]. These variations may be due to differences in study size, infection sites, patient populations, and quality of susceptibility testing and bacterial identification, underscoring the need for standardized AMR surveillance. In our study, cephalosporin resistance in K. pneumoniae was largely attributed to ESBL production. Carbapenem resistance was uncommon and observed even in isolates negative for carbapenemases, suggesting possible underdetection or involvement of other mechanisms such as AmpC beta-lactamases, porin loss, or efflux pumps. Due to laboratory limitations, further molecular confirmation was not performed, highlighting the urgent need to strengthen diagnostic capabilities in Rwanda. Although our method could not determine ciprofloxacin susceptibility for K. pneumoniae and E. cloacae, the observed high resistance rates (38% and 64%, respectively) suggest its empirical use should be limited and guided by AST results where possible. Globally, K. pneumoniae is recognized by the WHO as a critical-priority pathogen due to its resistance to last-line antibiotics, including carbapenems. According to the 2022 Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (GLASS) report, it was among the top three most commonly reported resistant pathogens in hospital-acquired infections worldwide. Its capacity to form biofilms, persist in hospital environments, and transmit resistance plasmids makes it a formidable challenge for infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship [22].
In this study, only 20 A. baumannii isolates were analyzed, of which 15 (75%) were resistant to carbapenems. Although intravenous colistin is often considered a last-resort treatment option for such infections [23], it was not tested because it was not included in the Gram-negative antibiotic panel used. Similar findings have been reported in Rwanda, where recent studies have identified A. baumannii as one of the most drug-resistant ESKAPE pathogens [6,13,21,24]. Data from tertiary hospitals in Kigali reported high levels of imipenem resistance among Acinetobacter spp [6,13,21,24]. This pattern is consistent with observations from neighboring and regional countries, confirming A. baumannii as a leading cause of carbapenem-resistant infections in healthcare settings across the region. Research conducted in Uganda reported carbapenem resistance rates as high as 87% among A. baumannii isolates from intensive care units, underscoring the pathogen’s critical role in healthcare-associated infections and its ability to withstand last-resort antibiotics [25]. Similarly, research from Tanzania and Kenya has documented the emergence of multidrug-resistant A. baumannii, often linked to prolonged hospitalization, limited infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, and the frequent use of broad-spectrum antibiotics [26,27]. These regional trends underscore the growing threat posed by A. baumannii in Sub-Saharan Africa, highlighting the urgent need for robust antimicrobial stewardship, improved diagnostic and IPC infrastructure challenges that mirror those observed in our study setting.
In this study, 29.4% of P. aeruginosa isolates were resistant to ceftazidime and 41.2% to meropenem, but only one was identified by the BD Phoenix system as a carbapenemase producer, suggesting other types of resistance mechanisms or possible under detection. These findings are consistent with reports from Tanzania [28], where meropenem resistance in P. aeruginosa is around 31%. Similar trends are observed in Uganda, with 45% resistance to ceftazidime, and even worse in Kenya [29], where ICU studies reported over 70% resistance to both drugs.
In this study, most Staphylococcus aureus isolates were oxacillin-susceptible, with only three MRSA cases and no vancomycin resistance. Clindamycin was effective against 95% of isolates. These results are consistent with findings from Rwandan tertiary hospitals prior to 2020, which documented a low prevalence of MRSA [13,16,30]. However, in the more recent study of blood cultures from three tertiary hospitals in Rwanda, oxacillin resistance varied and was up to 50% [21]. That may be due to either different epidemiology or lack of adequate identification methods and reagents in the published paper. No E. faecium was found, consistent with its rarity as a clinical cause of infection [31].
Our study is the first in Rwanda to comprehensively analyze AMR patterns of ESKAPE pathogens in a tertiary hospital setting. The use of both routine manual methods and subsequent confirmation with the BD Phoenix system provided a more reliable pathogen identification and susceptibility testing accuracy than in previous studies. In this study, 19.6% of isolates initially identified as ESKAPE pathogens using API 20E were later found to be different species when re-tested with the more accurate BD Phoenix system. This may be due not only to API limitations but also to errors during sub-culturing or storage, such as picking mixed or wrong colonies. Technical issues like labeling or handling errors may have further contributed. The automated BD Phoenix system also showed several limitations in this study. The BD Phoenix reagents available in Rwanda did not provide susceptible and intermediate results for fluoroquinolones in K. pneumoniae and E. cloacae. This limitation affects both the accuracy of resistance estimates and the ability to make informed treatment decisions, highlighting the need for supplementary testing. Another limitation of the study was the lack of documentation of the total number of ESKAPE isolates reported from the RMRTH lab during the study period, making it impossible to determine the dropout rate of isolates that were not stored for subsequent analysis. However, we estimate the dropout rate to be low. This is the first study in Rwanda to comprehensively assess automated resistance profiles of ESKAPE pathogens from a tertiary hospital. The BD Phoenix system improved diagnostic accuracy and highlights the need for quality-assured tools in LMICs to strengthen AMR surveillance. However, gaps in microbiology capacity and laboratory procedures may affect data reliability. This calls for confirmatory testing and stronger internal and external quality control measures.
As this manuscript provides an initial phenotypic overview, subsequent studies should focus on detailed genomic analyses, deciphering the genetic determinants of resistance and sequence types circulating in this part of the world.
The high prevalence of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative ESKAPE organisms identified in this study underscores the urgent need to strengthen IPC practices, AMS programs, and diagnostic capacity in Rwandan hospitals. These findings support the WHO Global Action Plan on AMR (2017) and highlight the critical need for sustained investments in laboratory infrastructure, workforce training, and integrated surveillance to mitigate the escalating threat of antimicrobial resistance in the region.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the significant presence of ESKAPE pathogens in a Rwandan referral hospital setting, with K. pneumoniae being the most commonly recovered organism. The primary AMR challenges identified were resistance to third-generation cephalosporins among the majority of Gram-negative species, and carbapenem resistance notably among A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa. Most Gram-negative isolates remained susceptible to amikacin, with the exception of A. baumannii. MRSA was uncommon, and no E. faecium was detected. These findings underscore the importance of AMR surveillance in Rwanda to inform local antibiotic prescribing guidelines and strengthen infection prevention and control strategies. Additionally, a high degree of bacterial misidentification was observed, emphasizing the urgent need for quality control and the use of standardized, accurate identification methods.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.M., L.M. and Å.G.; methodology, C.M., L.M. and Å.G.; software, C.M., G.M. and Å.G.; validation, C.M., G.M. and Å.G.; formal analysis, C.M., G.M. and Å.G.; investigation, C.M.; resources, C.M. and E.S.; data curation, C.M. and Å.G.; writing—original draft preparation, C.M., Å.G., E.S. and L.M.; writing—review and editing, C.M., E.S., L.A.-H., L.M. and Å.G.; visualization, C.M. and G.M.; supervision, E.S., L.A.-H., Å.G. and L.M.; project administration, C.M., L.M. and Å.G.; funding acquisition, C.M., E.S., L.M. and Å.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by University of Rwanda, European Union, Team Europe Initiative, MAV+, Access to Quality Vaccines, Medicines and Health Technologies in Rwanda, Kwigira Project (Grant number: RWA2100111).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institution Review Board of Rwanda Military Hospital (protocol code: REF/92/RMH/COMDT/2022 on 21 June 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was not required for this study because only bacterial isolates obtained from routine clinical specimens were used. No identifiable patient information was collected or analyzed. Ethical approval to use these clinical isolates for research purposes was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Rwanda Military Hospital.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Rwanda Military Referral and Teaching Hospital for providing the reagents and laboratory materials used for bacterial isolation, identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Our sincere appreciation goes to the Microbiology staff of the Pathology Laboratory Department at RMRTH. Special thanks to Deborah Tuyishimire and Apollinaire Noheli for their outstanding support in sample collection, isolation, and storage and Jean Pierre Uwizeyimana from King Faisal Hospital for his support in analyzing samples on BD Phoenix system.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AMRAntimicrobial Resistance
AMSAntimicrobial Stewardship
API20EsAnalytical Profile index 20 Enterobacterales
BD Phoenix™Becton, Dickinson Phoenix™ system
CLSIClinical Laboratory Standard Institute
CSFCerebral Spinal Fluid
ESBLExtended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase
ESKAPEEnterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobactor baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Entrobacter cloacae
GLASSGlobal Antimicrobial Surveillance System
HAIHospital Acquired Infection
ICUIntensive Care Unit
IPCInfection Prevention and Control
LMICsLow and Middle-Income Countries
MDROMulti-Drug Resistant Organism
MICMinimum Inhibition Concentration
MRSAMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
MRSAMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
NMIC/IDNegative Minimum Inhibition Concentration Identification
PMIC/IDPositive Minimum Inhibition Concentration Identification
RMRTHRwanda Military Referral and Teaching Hospital
SIRSensitive, Intermediate, Resistant
SSIsSurgical Site Infections
WHOWorld Health Organization

References

  1. World Health Organisation, Global Consultation: WHO Strategic and Operational Priorities to Address Drug-Resistant Bacterial Infections, 2025–2035. 2023. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/global-consultation--who-strategic-and-operational-priorities-to-address-drug-resistant-bacterial-infections--2025-2035 (accessed on 12 October 2025).
  2. World Bank. Drug Resistant Infections: A Threat to Our Economic Future. 2017. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/health/publication/drug-resistant-infections-a-threat-to-our-economic-future (accessed on 12 October 2025).
  3. Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: A systematic analysis. Lancet 2022, 399, 629–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Combating Antimicrobial Resistance and Protecting the Miracle of Modern Medicine; National Academies Press (US): Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  5. World Health Organization. Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) Report: Antibiotic Use Data for 2022. 29 April 2025. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240108127 (accessed on 12 October 2025).
  6. Igizeneza, A.; Bitunguhari, L.; Masaisa, F.; Hahirwa, I.; Uwamahoro, L.D.; Sebatunzi, O.; Umugwaneza, N.; Pauwels, I.; Versporten, A.; Vlieghe, E.; et al. Prescription Practices and Usage of Antimicrobials in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital in Rwanda: A Call for Antimicrobial Stewardship. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rice, L.B. Federal funding for the study of antimicrobial resistance in nosocomial pathogens: No ESKAPE. J. Infect. Dis. 2008, 197, 1079–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Bereanu, A.-S.; Bereanu, R.; Mohor, C.; Vintilă, B.I.; Codru, I.R.; Olteanu, C.; Sava, M. Prevalence of Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance of ESKAPE Group Bacteria Isolated from Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of a County Emergency Hospital in Romania. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Abukhalil, A.D.; Barakat, S.A.; Mansour, A.M.; Al-Shami, N.; Naseef, H. Prevalence and Antibiotic Resistance Patterns of ESKAPE Pathogens among Hospitalized Patients. Infect. Drug Resist. 2024, 17, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  10. Woh, P.; Zhang, X. The burden of ESKAPE pathogen-related hospital acquired infections: Clinical and financial perspective from a systematic review. J. Hosp. Infect. 2025, 162, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Singh, K.N.; Agarwal, K.; Singh, P.; Rukadikar, A.R.; Hada, V.; Mohanty, A.; Rana, S.; Rahul, A.; Mishra, S. Prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility of ESKAPE pathogens in skin and soft tissue infections. Indian J. Dermatol. Venereol. Leprol. 2025, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. World Health Organization. WHO Publishes List of Bacteria for Which New Antibiotics are Urgently Needed. 27 February 2017. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/27-02-2017-who-publishes-list-of-bacteria-for-which-new-antibiotics-are-urgently-needed (accessed on 12 October 2025).
  13. Bizimungu, O.; Crook, P.; Babane, J.F.; Bitunguhari, L. The prevalence and clinical context of antimicrobial resistance amongst medical inpatients at a referral hospital in Rwanda: A cohort study. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2024, 13, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Barrasa-Villar, J.I.; Aibar-Remón, C.; Prieto-Andrés, P.; Mareca-Doñate, R.; Moliner-Lahoz, J. Impact on Morbidity, Mortality, and Length of Stay of Hospital-Acquired Infections by Resistant Microorganisms. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 65, 644–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gajdács, M.; Albericio, F. Antibiotic Resistance: From the Bench to Patients. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ntirenganya, C.; Manzi, O.; Muvunyi, C.M.; Ogbuagu, O. High prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among common bacterial isolates in a tertiary healthcare facility in Rwanda. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2015, 92, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Gahamanyi, N.; Benigne, B.; Muhire, V. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus among clinical isolates and their responses to selected antibiotics at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Kigali (CHUK). J. Microbiol. Exp. 2017, 5, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Antimicrobial Resistance in the EU/EEA (EARS Net)—Annual Epidemiological Report 2023. 18 November 2024. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/antimicrobial-resistance-eueea-ears-net-annual-epidemiological-report-2023 (accessed on 12 October 2025).
  19. CLSI M100; Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (CLSI Supplement M100). 35th ed. CLSI: Wayne, Pennsylvania, 27 January 2025. Available online: https://clsi.org/shop/standards/m100/ (accessed on 12 October 2025).
  20. Maveke, S.M.; Aboge, G.O.; Kanja, L.W.; Mainga, A.O.; Gachau, N.; Muchira, B.W.; Moriasi, G.A. Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterization of Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Clinical Isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in Two Kenyan Facilities: A National Referral and a Level Five Hospital. Int. J. Microbiol. 2024, 2024, 7463899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Worku, M.; Belay, S.; Molla, T.; Aynalem, M.; Assefa, M. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from various clinical specimens at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Infect. Dis. 2024, 24, 917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gashegu, M.; Ndahindwa, V.; Rwagasore, E.; Tuyishime, A.; Musanabaganwa, C.; Gahamanyi, N.; Mukagatare, I.; Mbarushimana, D.; Green, C.A.; Dzinamarira, T.; et al. Diversity, Distribution, and Resistance Profiles of Bacterial Bloodstream Infections in Three Tertiary Referral Hospitals in Rwanda Between 2020 and 2022. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Guerra, M.E.S.; Destro, G.; Vieira, B.; Lima, A.S.; Ferraz, L.F.C.; Hakansson, A.P.; Darrieux, M.; Converso, T.R. Klebsiella pneumoniae biofilms and their role in disease pathogenesis. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bostanghadiri, N.; Narimisa, N.; Mirshekar, M.; Dadgar-Zankbar, L.; Taki, E.; Navidifar, T.; Darban-Sarokhalil, D. Prevalence of colistin resistance in clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2024, 13, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aruhomukama, D.; Najjuka, C.F.; Kajumbula, H.; Okee, M.; Mboowa, G.; Sserwadda, I.; Mayanja, R.; Joloba, M.L.; Kateete, D.P. Bla VIM-and bla OXA-mediated carbapenem resistance among Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from the Mulago hospital intensive care unit in Kampala, Uganda. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Masoud, S.S.; Njakoi, G.; Sholla, S.; Renatus, D.; Majigo, M.; Gangji, R.R.; Nyawale, H.; Mawazo, A.; Msafiri, F.; Ntukula, A.; et al. Carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii in Tanzania. Ger. J. Microbiol. 2024, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Agyepong, N.; Fordjour, F.; Owusu-Ofori, A. Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in healthcare settings in Africa. Front. Trop. Dis. 2023, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mikomangwa, W.P.; Bwire, G.; Kilonzi, M.; Mlyuka, H.; Mutagonda, R.F.; Kibanga, W.; Marealle, A.I.; Minzi, O.; Mwambete, K.D. The existence of high bacterial resistance to some reserved antibiotics in tertiary hospitals in Tanzania: A call to revisit their use. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020, 13, 1831–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Karuitha, J.N.; Akinyi, O.S.; Njeri, M.A.; Marianne, M. Prevalence and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profile of Metallo-β-Lactamase Producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates at Kenyatta National Hospital. Adv. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  30. Carroll, M.; Rangaiahagari, A.; Musabeyezu, E.; Singer, D.; Ogbuagu, O. Five-year antimicrobial susceptibility trends among bacterial isolates from King Faisal Hospital Tertiary Health-Care Facility in Kigali, Rwanda. Clin. Ther. 2017, 95, 1277–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Salami, W.O.; Ajoseh, S.O.; Lawal-Sanni, A.O.; El Tawab, A.A.A.; Neubauer, H.; Wareth, G.; Akinyemi, K.O. Prevalence, Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns, and Emerging Carbapenemase-Producing Enterococcus Species from Different Sources in Lagos, Nigeria. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Age and sex characteristics of study subjects.
Table 1. Age and sex characteristics of study subjects.
VariableFrequency%
Sex
Female4836.4
Male8463.6
Age
Below 152317.4
15–292115.9
30–443627.3
45–54129.1
55 and above4030.3
Table 2. Distribution of ESKAPE isolates by clinical specimens.
Table 2. Distribution of ESKAPE isolates by clinical specimens.
IsolatesBlood CulturePusTracheal AspirateUrineOthersTotal
A. baumannii12153021
E. cloacae1407012
K. pneumoniae791334164
P. aeruginosa4481017
S. aureus82217442
Grand Total214137525156
Table 3. Distribution of isolates by wards.
Table 3. Distribution of isolates by wards.
WardsIsolates
A. baumanniiE. cloacaeK. pneumoniaeP. aeruginosaS. aureusTotal
A&E101035
General surgery0340310
Gynecology02100113
ICU1601610042
Internal Medicine 331651744
Polyclinic010001
Neonatology013037
Pediatrics01521523
Urology 1190011
Grand Total2112641742156
Abbreviations: A&E: Accident and Emergency, ICU: Intensive Care Unit.
Table 4. Frequency of antibiotic susceptibility per Gram-negative ESKAPE pathogens.
Table 4. Frequency of antibiotic susceptibility per Gram-negative ESKAPE pathogens.
AntibioticsA. baumanniiE. cloacaeK. pneumoniaeP. aeruginosa
Amikacin6/20 (20.0%)10/10 (100.0%)62/63 (98.4%) 17/17 (100.0%)
Gentamicin3/20 (15.0%)5/11 (45.4%)45/63 (71.4%)13/17 (76.4%)
Amoxicillin–Clavulanic acidNA0/12 (0.0%) a34/63 (53.9%)NA
AmpicilinNA0/12 (0.0%) a0/63 (0.0%)NA
CefazolinNA0/12 (0.0%) a0/63 (0.0%)NA
CefuroximeNA2/11 (18.1%)21/63 (33.3%)NA
Ceftazidime3/18 (16.6%)NANA9/17 (47.3%)
Ceftriaxone3/20 (15.0%)3/11 (27.2%)23/63 (36.5%)NA
Cefepime4/20 (20.0%)2/11 (18.2%)25/63 (39.6%)9/17 (52.9%)
Ceftolozane–TazobactamNA9/11 (81.8%)51/62 (82.2)13/17 (76.4%)
Piperacillin–Tazobactam2/20 (10.0%)7/11 (63.6%)47/63 (75%)9/17 (52.9%)
ErtapenemNA9/11 (81.8%)55/63 (87.3%)NA
Imipenem5/20 (25.0%)11/11 (100.0%)61/63 (96.8%)11/17 (64.7%)
Meropenem5/20 (25.0%)10/11 (90.9%)59/63 (93.6%)10/17 (58.8%)
TigecyclineNA7/8 (87.5)46/52 (88.4%)NA
Ciprofloxacin4/20 (20.0%)0/11 (0.0%) a0/63 (0.0%) a11/17 (64.7%)
Levofloxacin4/20 (20.0%)NA0/63 (0.0%) a11/17 (64.7%)
a The Result S was not possible to obtain with the phoenix cartridge used in the study. NA = not analyzed.
Table 5. Antibiotic susceptibility for Staphylococcus aureus.
Table 5. Antibiotic susceptibility for Staphylococcus aureus.
AntibioticsFrequency of Antibiotic Susceptibility
Trimethoprim–Sulfamethoxazole16/39 (41.0%)
Nitrofurantoin5/6 (83.3%)
Daptomycin42/42 (100.0%)
Linezolid41/41 (100.0%)
Oxacillin39/42(92.8%)
Penicillin G0/41 (0.0%)
Rifampin41/42 (97.6%)
Tetracycline32/41 (78.0%)
Vancomycin42/42 (100.0%)
Erythromycin35/37 (94.5%)
Clindamycin35/37 (94.5%)
Ceftaroline42/42 (100.0%)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Muhinda, C.; Murenzi, G.; Al-Hassan, L.; Seruyange, E.; Mutesa, L.; Gylfe, Å. High Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens at a Rwandan Tertiary Hospital. Pathogens 2025, 14, 1253. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14121253

AMA Style

Muhinda C, Murenzi G, Al-Hassan L, Seruyange E, Mutesa L, Gylfe Å. High Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens at a Rwandan Tertiary Hospital. Pathogens. 2025; 14(12):1253. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14121253

Chicago/Turabian Style

Muhinda, Charles, Gad Murenzi, Leena Al-Hassan, Eric Seruyange, Leon Mutesa, and Åsa Gylfe. 2025. "High Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens at a Rwandan Tertiary Hospital" Pathogens 14, no. 12: 1253. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14121253

APA Style

Muhinda, C., Murenzi, G., Al-Hassan, L., Seruyange, E., Mutesa, L., & Gylfe, Å. (2025). High Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens at a Rwandan Tertiary Hospital. Pathogens, 14(12), 1253. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14121253

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop