Next Article in Journal
Mid-Regional Pro-Adrenomedullin as a Prognostic Factor for Severe COVID-19 ARDS
Next Article in Special Issue
Antimicrobial Resistance Profile of Bacterial Isolates from Urinary Tract Infections in Companion Animals in Central Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Tissue Penetration of Antimicrobials in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review—Part I
Previous Article in Special Issue
Plants with Antimicrobial Activity Growing in Italy: A Pathogen-Driven Systematic Review for Green Veterinary Pharmacology Applications
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/antibiotics11091165
antibiotics-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Frequency of Antibiotic-Resistant Clostridium Species in Saudi Arabia

by
Saeed S. Banawas
1,2,3
1
Department of Medical Laboratories, College of Applied Medical Science, Majmaah University, Al-Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia
2
Health and Basic Sciences Research Center, Majmaah University, Al-Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
Antibiotics 2022, 11(9), 1165; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11091165
Submission received: 9 July 2022 / Revised: 25 August 2022 / Accepted: 26 August 2022 / Published: 29 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Resistance in One Health Perspective: New Insights in Human, Animal, and Environment Interlace)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Clostridium is a genus comprising Gram-positive, rod-shaped, spore-forming, anaerobic bacteria that cause a variety of diseases. However, there is a shortage of information regarding antibiotic resistance in the genus in Saudi Arabia. This comprehensive analysis of research results published up until December 2021 intends to highlight the incidence of antibiotic resistance in Clostridium species in Saudi Arabia. PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, SDL, and ScienceDirect databases were searched using specific keywords, and ten publications on antibiotic resistance in Clostridium species in Saudi Arabia were identified. We found that the rates of resistance of Clostridium difficile to antibiotics were as follows: 42% for ciprofloxacin, 83% for gentamicin, 28% for clindamycin, 25% for penicillin, 100% for levofloxacin, 24% for tetracycline, 77% for nalidixic acid, 50% for erythromycin, 72% for ampicillin, and 28% for moxifloxacin; whereas those of C. perfringens were: 21% for metronidazole, 83% for ceftiofur, 39% for clindamycin, 59% for penicillin, 62% for erythromycin, 47% for oxytetracycline, and 47% for lincomycin. The current findings suggest that ceftiofur, erythromycin, lincomycin, and oxytetracycline should not be used in C. perfringens infection treatments in humans or animals in Saudi Arabia.

1. Introduction

Clostridium is a genus of Gram-positive, rod-shaped, anaerobic bacteria that cause a wide variety of diseases in humans and animals [1,2]. Furthermore, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are considered one of the biggest threats to global health, food safety, and development [3]. Bacteria are unicellular microorganisms that can develop resistance to antibacterial agents; unfortunately, the misuse of these antibacterials in both humans and animals is accelerating this process [2]. Several factors play key roles in the emergence of resistance. One of them is the acquisition of new genes from other bacterial strains, which helps a bacterium develop new mechanisms to withstand/counteract antibacterial actions against it [4]. Another factor is the alteration of bacterial DNA due to random mutations, which enables bacteria to survive, better withstand a variety of environments, and multiply [4].
Antibacterial-resistant strains of Clostridium, including C. difficile, C. tetani, C. perfringens, and C. botulinum, have been reported worldwide [2]. C. difficile is a strictly anaerobic pathogenic bacterium that produces spores that can survive in the environment for years; it is highly resistant and causes C. difficile infections (CDIs) [5]. C. difficile is an important antimicrobial-resistant microorganism associated with watery diarrhea and pseudomembranous colitis infections in healthcare facilities, causing mild to moderate and sometimes life-threatening disease [6,7,8]. It is part of the intestinal microbiota of approximately 3% of healthy adults and 20% of infants [9]. CDI is the major cause of approximately 33% of cases of antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and 90% of cases of pseudomembranous enteritis [10]. Disturbance of the gut microbiota caused by broad-spectrum antibiotics is thought to originate in 33% of AADs, allowing C. difficile to colonize and grow in the colon, resulting in disease symptoms.
C. difficile is the major bacterial cause of hospital-acquired diarrheas associated with antibiotics, not only in the United States, but worldwide [2,11]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other organizations have reported that, yearly, antibiotic-resistant CDIs occur in approximately 2.8 million patients and lead to more than 35,000 deaths in the United States [11,12]. The annual CDI-attributable cost to the global healthcare system is more than USD 4.6 billion [11,12]. Despite the existence of clear guidelines as well as diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, the CDI rate is increasing, both in Europe and the United States [13]. The clinical signs and symptoms of CDI range from mild to severe diarrhea, which may lead to toxic megacolon, sepsis, fulminant colitis, bowel perforation, and even death [14].
Although no nationwide investigation on CDI prevalence has been published in Saudi Arabia, the few single-center studies that have been published have revealed a low rate of CDIs [15,16,17]. Of all diarrhea samples evaluated, one of these studies was able to find a rising trend of healthcare-associated CDIs, from 17% in 2001 to 20% in 2018 [16]. Reports suggest the emergence of C. difficile multidrug-resistant strains with high morbidity and mortality rates. One such strain is the NAP1/BI/027 strain (also known as ribotype [RT] 027), which was first reported in England in 2005 [18,19]; since then, it has rapidly spread to other European countries and the USA. This strain has also been reported in Saudi Arabia [20], where it affected four elderly patients, one of whom was administered metronidazole and vancomycin; however, the patient’s condition worsened, and he eventually died. The erythromycin and moxifloxacin resistance exhibited by the RT 027 strain may confer a selective advantage for the bacterium [21]. RT 027 resistance to metronidazole, moxifloxacin, and vancomycin has been reported in several countries [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29].
According to recent statistics, strain RT 027 is the most prevalent hypervirulent strain, causing serious infections and increasing mortality globally [30,31,32,33]. Another highly virulent strain, RT 078, which causes infections in humans (especially in hospitals and communities) and animals, was found in European countries such as the Netherlands [34,35,36,37,38]. The spread of CDIs among hospitalized patients and the elderly has been attributed to antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance also affects healthy individuals [39]. In recent years, different countries have reported an increase in CDI incidence among their residents. In addition, domestic clinical isolates of the RT 017 strain have been commonly observed in the USA, Canada, Poland, and South Korea [24,25,40,41,42].
Treatment with broad-spectrum antimicrobial medicines, which produce an imbalance in the intestinal microflora, is the most common risk-enhancing factor for CDI due to developed resistance. Antimicrobial drug medications, such as erythromycin, penicillin, cephalosporins, clindamycin, and fluoroquinolones, stimulate an extensive CDI transmission inside and outside of hospitals and enhance C. difficile resistance to these drugs [43,44,45,46]. C. difficile resistance to erythromycin, penicillin, cephalosporins, clindamycin, and fluoroquinolones has already been reported in some studies [47,48,49]. For example, in New Zealand, approximately 100 isolates collected from 97 patients showed 100% resistance to penicillin [49]. Another study in Sweden showed that approximately 85% of the isolates that were collected from 13 patients with C. difficile-associated diarrhea were resistant to clindamycin [47]. One study reported that C. difficile isolates from different countries showed different tetracycline-resistance profiles, which ranged from 0 to 39% of the strains being resistant [50,51].
Most individuals with CDI are treated with metronidazole or vancomycin to ensure the best treatment outcome. However, recurrent use of these drugs will sooner or later result in the development of C. difficile resistant strains. Currently, metronidazole and fidaxomicin are the most widely used drugs to treat patients with CDIs, whereas the use of vancomycin is avoided [11]. Though the use of vancomycin usually decreases the infection in more than 95% of the cases, it leads to CDI recurrence in 15–30% of individuals [52,53,54,55]. This is because the high selectivity of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus [56,57] may also lead to the formation of C. difficile vancomycin-resistant strains (e.g., by horizontal transfer).
Studies from different countries have demonstrated an increase in C. difficile resistance to vancomycin. In Poland, approximately 8% of patients with CDI were found to have strains resistant to vancomycin (three out of 38 isolates) [58]. In Spain, approximately 6% of CDI sample isolates showed intermediate resistance to vancomycin [56]. In addition, vancomycin resistance was observed in approximately 58 and 31.5% of strains in Brazil and Israel, respectively. [59,60]. In Iran, the percentage of C. difficile strains isolated from human samples that were resistant to vancomycin increased from 8 to 20% from 2010 to 2016 [61,62,63].
C. perfringens is a species associated with foodborne illnesses, gas gangrene, and various other diseases in both humans and animals [1,2,64,65,66,67]. This bacterium is usually found in meat products, and its spores can survive cooking processes and thus germinate and multiply rapidly [68,69,70,71]. In humans, soft tissue wound infections, such as cellulitis, suppurative myositis, and myonecrosis, are caused by C. perfringens [1,2,65,66]. In addition, C. perfringens affects livestock, causing diseases such as necrotic enteritis, and has an impact at the economic level [72].
C. perfringens isolates are classified into seven different toxinotypes (named A–G) depending on the major types of toxins they produce (alpha, beta, epsilon, or iota). Overall, C. perfringens strains can secrete more than 20 extracellular toxins or hydrolytic enzymes, which are the main virulence factors involved in their pathogenicity [66,73,74,75]. Type F isolates, for example, produce C. perfringens enterotoxin (CPE), which is responsible for food poisoning (FP) and non-foodborne (NFB) gastrointestinal (GI) diseases [1,76,77,78,79]. Approximately 5% to 15% of AAD cases are linked to C. perfringens type F FP and NFB GI diseases [1,76,77,78,79,80,81]. Interestingly, most cases of FP are caused by type F isolates carrying the CPE-encoding gene (cpe) on chromosome C (C-cpe isolates), whereas NFB GI diseases (i.e., sporadic diarrhea and AAD) are caused by type F isolates carrying a plasmid-borne cpe (P-cpe isolates) [69,82,83,84]. C. perfringens type F FP is the second most commonly reported bacterial foodborne disease and accounts for more than 1 million cases per year in the United States [85,86,87].
Several studies have determined the antimicrobial resistance of C. perfringens and the risks that this resistance poses to humans and animals [88]. Resistance to common antibiotics such as penicillin has been frequently reported. Furthermore, resistance to alternative medicines, such as metronidazole and clindamycin, has been observed in isolates from human fecal samples [89,90,91]. In Thailand, most C. perfringens isolates from pig and human feces were resistant to tetracycline (approximately 77% and 45%, respectively) [92]. In Egypt, a study on broiler chicken samples revealed that almost 100% of the sample isolates were resistant to gentamicin, oxolinic acid, streptomycin, erythromycin, lincomycin, and spiramycin [93]. A similar study reported that the rates of resistance to lincomycin and tetracycline of C. perfringens isolates from broiler chickens were 63% and 66%, respectively [94]. In India, a study reported that more than 55% and 27% of the total C. perfringens isolates from ducks were resistant to penicillin and tetracycline, respectively [95].
C. botulinum is the causative agent of botulism, a rare but serious paralytic disease (flaccid paralysis) that can affect both humans and animals [96,97,98]. There are three common forms of botulism caused by C. botulinum. The first is foodborne botulism, which is caused by bacteria that thrive and produce toxins in an environment where there is little or no oxygen, as in canned foods [96,98]. The second, wound botulism, results from bacteria that enter the body through a wound, where they secrete their toxins, causing a serious wound infection [96]. Finally, infant botulism, the most common form of botulism, starts after C. botulinum spores germinate in the intestinal tract of a baby. It typically occurs in babies aged between two and eight months [97,98]. C. botulinum toxins are among the most dangerous bacterial toxins that cause paralytic disease [96,99]. According to the latest updated CDC reports, an average of 141 cases of botulism occur in the United States per year, of which approximately 10% are cases of foodborne botulism, 77% are cases of infant botulism, and 10% are cases of wound botulism [100]. C. botulinum produces seven antigenically distinguishable exotoxins (A–G) [96,99] that interfere with neural transmission by obstructing the release of acetylcholine, the major neurotransmitter at the neuromuscular junction, resulting in muscle paralysis [96,99]. Recent increases in the number of drug-resistant pathogens have provoked the appearance of highly resistant C. botulinum strains, the control of which is challenging [101]. In general, C. botulinum strains have been observed to be moderately resistant to chloramphenicol, tetracycline, cephalosporins, and nalidixic acid and highly resistant to cycloserine, nitroimidazoles, gentamicin, sulfamethoxazole, and trimethoprim [102,103].
C. tetani is an obligate bacterium that produces two different toxins: tetanolysin, which destroys local tissue, and tetanospasmin, which causes tetanus [104,105,106]. Tetanus is a dangerous disease that affects the nervous system, causing painful muscle contractions, particularly in the jaw and neck muscles [106]. It commonly occurs in geriatric patients but also in young adults in developing countries [104]. Tetanus is now considered rare in developed countries because of vaccination efforts; however, it remains a potentially fatal disease, especially in developing countries [105]. Tetanus is estimated to cause 213,000–293,000 deaths globally each year according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control’s annual epidemiological report, although the number of cases has decreased sharply since the 1950s [107]. C. tetani spores are commonly present in the soil and innate objects such as clothing; they are highly resistant and can survive for years. When they enter the body, they activate and produce the potent toxin tetanospasmin, which impairs the nerves that control the muscles and may eventually lead to death [108]. A study showed that approximately 100% of isolates of C. tetani from patients were resistant to erythromycin and ofloxacin [109].
In developing countries, including Saudi Arabia, research on the prevalence of antibiotic resistance that could highlight the magnitude of the occurrence of pathogenic Clostridium species in humans and animals is lacking. Moreover, antibiotic resistance in pathogenic and commensal bacteria is becoming a serious problem. Therefore, the goal of this research was to determine the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant Clostridium species in Saudi Arabia.

2. Results

2.1. Literature Search

As illustrated in Figure 1, an online search was conducted on Google Scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and the SDL databases to find articles on antibiotic resistance in the four Clostridium spp. reported for Saudi Arabia (see Table 1). A total of 13,353 articles were selected after checking their titles and abstracts and applying the inclusion criteria. Of these, only 112 were screened due to their relevance, and 25 of them were further assessed and examined carefully. Finally, we selected 10 studies that were useful for our systematic review and meta-analysis (Figure 1 and Table 2). Any study that lacked crucial data had non-relevant content, or was not local was excluded. Studies on the antibiotic susceptibility of Saudi Arabian Clostridium spp., other than C. difficile and C. perfringens, have not yet been published.

2.2. Characteristics of the Study

Table 2 summarizes the features of the ten selected publications. Al-Ahasa, Jazan, the Eastern Province, Riyadh, Al-Taif, Al-Jouf, and Al-baha were among the cities or regions in which the research was conducted. C. difficile and C. perfringens were the most common species isolated from animals, humans, stool samples, blood samples, bodily fluids, female genitals, baskets, conveyor belts, and plastic bags. However, we were unable to find any studies on the antibiotic resistance patterns of other Clostridium species in Saudi Arabia. We found that E-tests and disk diffusion assays were the most commonly used methods for antibiotic susceptibility testing, with moxifloxacin, clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and erythromycin being the most commonly used antibiotics in these tests.

2.3. Antibiotic Resistance Frequencies in C. difficile

In Saudi Arabia, seven studies reported C. difficile antibiotic resistance (Table 2). Overall, C. difficile strains showed the following average antibiotic resistance percentages: 42% for ciprofloxacin, 83% for gentamicin, 28% for clindamycin, 25% for penicillin, 100% for levofloxacin, 24% for tetracycline, 77% for nalidixic acid, 50% for erythromycin, 72% for ampicillin, and 28% for moxifloxacin. Table 2 shows that the average resistance of C. difficile isolates to levofloxacin, gentamicin, erythromycin, and moxifloxacin increased from 2011 to 2020, although the data are limited.

2.4. Antibiotic Resistance Frequencies in C. perfringens

Our online database search revealed that only three studies on the antibiotic resistance of C. perfringens strains from Saudi Arabia are available (Table 1 and Table 2). The mean percentages of antibiotic resistance to C. perfringens strains were as follows: 21% for metronidazole, 83% for ceftiofur, 39% for clindamycin, 59% for penicillin, 56% for tetracycline, 62% for erythromycin, 47% for oxytetracycline, and 47% for lincomycin. Table 2 shows that the average resistance of C. perfringens isolates to metronidazole, ceftiofur, clindamycin, and penicillin increased from 1988 to 2020, although the data are limited.

2.5. Meta-Analysis Results

Table 3 summarizes the pooled proportion of resistance of Clostridium species for each antibiotic examined. The pooled proportion of resistance was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.22–0.54) and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.23–0.47) for metronidazole and clindamycin, respectively. Similarly, the pooled proportion for tetracycline was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.20–0.51), and a relatively higher resistance was observed for penicillin, with a pooled proportion of 0.45 (95% CI: 0.15–0.78). Although the number of studies involved was small (two studies each), the pooled proportion of resistance for ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and erythromycin was 0.30 (95% CI: 0.12–0.57), 0.50 (95% CI: 0.00–1.00), and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.25–0.88), respectively.
Forest plots for each antibiotic are shown in Figure 2a–g. In subgroup analyses, C. difficile showed higher resistance to clindamycin (0.41; 95% CI: 0.29–0.55) than C. perfringens (0.24; 95% CI: 0.04–0.70), although the difference was not statistically significant (Table 3). Interestingly, for metronidazole, resistance was observed only in C. perfringens but not in C. difficile (Figure 2b and Table 2). Based on funnel plots of study size against log odds, there was no major publication bias. However, due to the small number of studies, Egger’s test of symmetry was not sufficiently powered to determine publication bias. As there is a contradiction between these two last results, it is not possible to draw any conclusion on this matter.

3. Discussion

The information on the antimicrobial susceptibility of the two abovementioned Clostridium species, C. difficile and C. perfringens, has been summarized in this review article. In Saudi Arabia, data on the antimicrobial resistance of Clostridium species are extremely limited. The widespread use of antibiotics in the world, as a course plan treatment for different Clostridium species, such as C. difficile and C. perfringens, has led to the development of a new set of Clostridium species that are resistant to a variety of antibiotic drugs [7].
Although the data showed that all the Clostridium species isolates were still sensitive to metronidazole and vancomycin in Saudi Arabia, it was also noticed that C. difficile had become resistant to other antibiotics, including aminoglycosides, lincomycin, clindamycin, and cephalosporins with expanded and extended spectrums, as well as to fluoroquinolones, ampicillin, and amoxicillin, which are routinely used in clinical settings to treat bacterial infections and may increase the risk of CDI [119,120,121].
In this study, we found information about different C. difficile isolates from clinical and non-clinical sources (such as baskets, trolleys, conveyor belts, and plastic bags), animals (chicken, cow, sheep, and goat meat), and humans studied in Saudi Arabia and analyzed such information. The resistance rates to levofloxacin, nalidixic acid, ciprofloxacin, and moxifloxacin (a member of the quinolone group) in Saudi Arabia were as high as 100%, 77%, 42%, and 28%, respectively, in C. difficile isolates. Moxifloxacin’s total rate of antibiotic resistance in C. difficile isolates from clinical and non-clinical specimens in Saudi Arabia was lower compared to that of isolates from European countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, and France, which showed resistances of 100%, 100%, 68%, 41%, and 38%, respectively [7]. In comparison, the rate of moxifloxacin resistance in clinical isolates from Saudi Arabia was higher than that of isolates from Sweden and Spain, which were 15% and 8%, respectively [7]. Moreover, the moxifloxacin resistance rate in C. difficile isolates from Saudi Arabia was lower than that in isolates from North America (reaching 83%) and the United States (reaching 36%), while it was higher than that in isolates from South American countries such as Brazil (which was as low as 8%) [7]. In several countries in the Middle East, close to Saudi Arabia, the moxifloxacin resistance rate in C. difficile isolates was lower than that in isolates from Iran (67.9%), South Korea (62.6%), and China (61.8%) but higher than those in strains from Israel (5%) and Japan (0%) [7,122]. From these results, it can be concluded that the resistance rate to quinolones was high in Saudi Arabia, suggesting that caution should be exercised while identifying and treating C. difficile infections; we recommend the use of ribotyping methods to determine the drug that should be prescribed.
Clindamycin and erythromycin are lincosamide and macrolide antibiotics, respectively, that are being used in geographical areas with bacteria with significantly high resistance rates [123]. Clindamycin resistance was discovered in 28% of all C. difficile isolates from clinical and non-clinical specimens in Saudi Arabia, according to the current investigation. Different reports of clindamycin resistance rates of isolates from different countries were as follows: Clindamycin resistance rates of Saudi Arabian isolates were lower than those of isolates from European countries such as Spain (74%), Sweden (65%), France (34.8%), Poland (38%), and Hungary (31%) [7] and were also lower than those of isolates from the USA (36%), New Zealand (61%), and other Asian countries, such as Iran (84.3%), Japan (87.7%), Korea (81%), and China (88.1%) [7,122]. However, the resistance rate was higher in isolates from the Czech Republic by 10% [7]. Therefore, clindamycin use in Saudi Arabia should be limited to avoid the establishment of resistant strains under selection pressure.
In Saudi Arabia, 50% of all C. difficile isolates from clinical and non-clinical specimens tested positive for erythromycin resistance. Recent studies of erythromycin resistance in different countries showed that Saudi Arabian isolate resistance rates were lower than those of European isolates from Poland (100%), the Czech Republic (100%), and Germany (76%) (Banawas, 2018) but higher than those of isolates from Sweden (14%), France (19%), Spain (49%), and Hungary (31%). In addition, North American isolates showed an approximately 86% higher erythromycin resistance rate than Saudi Arabian isolates. Asian countries showed isolates with higher rates of erythromycin resistance compared to that of Saudi Arabian isolates, for example, those isolates from Japan (~88%), Iran (78%), Korea (80%), and China (85%) [7,122]. In our study, the prevalence of tetracycline resistance among C. difficile isolates was 24% in Saudi Arabia. This rate was low compared to that of strains from Asian countries such as China (about 63%) and Iran (~33%), but higher than that observed in isolates from countries such as Sweden (~8%), Hungary (12%), and the United States (~8%) [7,122].
C. perfringens isolates from Saudi Arabia originated in humans and animals. A high rate of resistance to ceftiofur was observed in isolates from animals. Ceftiofur is a third-generation cephalosporin that is commonly and legally used in veterinary medicine. C. perfringens isolates in Saudi Arabia were resistant to ceftiofur (~83%), a high rate compared with that observed in isolates from Brazil (0%), China (2.6%), and Thailand (82%) [124,125,126]. In our study, the erythromycin resistance rate of 62% was higher than that observed in Chinese (49%), Iranian (32.9%), and Brazilian (58.6%) strains [122,125,127]. In addition, the clindamycin resistance rate of 6% seen in Saudi Arabian isolates was lower than that reported in a study on strains from China (26.9%) and higher than that reported for isolates from New Zealand (0%) [125,128]. The strain oxytetracycline resistance rate of 47% seen in Saudi Arabia was lower than that reported for Egypt (67%) and Brazil (48.3%) [93,127]. The metronidazole resistance rate of 21% of strains from Saudi Arabia was higher than that in isolates from Brazil (0%) and New Zealand (0%) [127,128]. Several studies on the prevalence of penicillin-resistant C. perfringens strains have been published. In Canada, New Zealand, and Brazil, the rate of penicillin-resistant strains was approximately 0%, which was much lower than that found in Saudi Arabia where the penicillin resistance rate was as high as 59% [127,128,129].
The generalizations of the outcome need to be made in light of the limitations of the study. Some of the important limitations were (i) the small number of total articles published in the area, (ii) the non-performance of quality assessment of the included papers, and (iii) for some of the antibiotics, the number of available articles was less.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Literature Search

An online search was conducted in five databases: ScienceDirect (https://www.sciencedirect.com, accessed on 8 July 2022), PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed on 8 July 2022), Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com, accessed on 8 July 2022), Web of Science (https://www-webofscience-com, accessed on 8 July 2022), and the Saudi Digital Library (SDL; https://sdl.edu.sa, accessed on 8 July 2022). The search included terms such as “Antibiotic resistance”, “Clostridium”, “C. difficile”, “C. botulinum”, “C. tetani”, “C. perfringens”, and “Saudi Arabia.” The search was limited to articles published up to December 2021 (Figure 1 and Table 1) either in English or Arabic. In total, 13,535 literature studies were found. Most of the studies, 13,343, with their date studies were excluded either because they were irrelevant or not eligible or had been conducted in other countries.

4.2. Selection Criteria

As previously stated, we searched for published studies on the antimicrobial resistance of Clostridium species isolated in Saudi Arabia. Except for non-original or duplicate papers, there were no selection restrictions regarding the types of specimens used in the studies (human or animal sources) or the type of investigation followed (Table 1). To reduce selection bias, all potentially relevant publications were rigorously assessed, and only those that met the inclusion criteria were chosen. If a study appeared to be relevant, the complete publications were retrieved after reviewing the abstract (Figure 1).

4.3. Data Extraction

Relevant data, such as the location of the study, year of publication, specimen type (animal or human), number of isolates, type of tests used for antimicrobial susceptibility determination, and different resistant strains of Clostridium species, were extracted from the selected articles.

4.4. Statistical Analysis

To estimate the pooled proportion of resistance to different antibiotics, we employed the metaprop command of the “meta” package of R. Due to heterogeneity, we analyzed the results based on a random-effects meta-analysis. We used the inverse variance method for those proportions near boundaries (in this instance, 100% at 1-year survival or 0% at stage IV), which allows computation of exact binomial and score test-based CIs. Whenever the number of studies allowed it, subgroup analysis was performed for C. difficile and C. perfringens separately, e.g., for clindamycin resistance. Since conventional funnel plots are not appropriate for a low proportion of outcomes, we used funnel plots of study size against log odds to assess publication bias. The frequency of resistance of the isolates was obtained by dividing the number of resistant strains by that of the total isolates (Table 2).

5. Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the frequency of antibiotic-resistant Clostridium species in Saudi Arabia using a systematic and meta-analysis approach. Our study concluded that, in the case of vancomycin and metronidazole, which are regularly part of the first-line therapy, the rate of appearance of antibiotic resistance was very low among clinical and non-clinical isolates of C. difficile in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, other C. difficile isolates showed lower resistance rates to drugs, including tetracycline, erythromycin, and ciprofloxacin. Furthermore, clinical C. perfringens isolates in Saudi Arabia showed significantly lower resistance rates to vancomycin, metronidazole, and clindamycin. However, resistance rates to ceftiofur, erythromycin, clindamycin, oxytetracycline, metronidazole, and penicillin were high in C. perfringens isolates. Therefore, these antibiotics are not recommended in Saudi Arabia for the treatment of clostridial illnesses in humans and animals.

Funding

This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at the Majmaah University grant number R-2022–257.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at the Majmaah University for supporting this work under project number R-2022–257. The authors would like to thank Dilshad Manzar and Mohammed A. Alaidarous for their help during the data extraction process and quality analysis of the articles finally chosen.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

AADantibiotic-associated diarrhea
CDIC. difficile infection
CPEC. perfringens enterotoxin
FPfood poisoning
GIgastrointestinal
NFBnon-foodborne

References

  1. McClane, B.A.; Robertson, S.L.; Li, J. Clostridium perfringens. In Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 4th ed.; Doyle, M.P., Buchanan, R., Eds.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; pp. 465–486. [Google Scholar]
  2. Murray, R.; Rosenthal, S.; Pfaller, A. Medical Microbiology, 9th ed.; Elsevier Health Sciences: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. WHO. Antibiotic Resistance. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antibiotic-resistance (accessed on 31 July 2020).
  4. Aly, M.; Balkhy, H.H. The prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in clinical isolates from Gulf Corporation Council countries. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2012, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  5. Paredes-Sabja, D.; Shen, A.; Sorg, J.A. Clostridium difficile spore biology: Sporulation, germination, and spore structural proteins. Trends Microbiol. 2014, 22, 406–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Obaid, N.A.; Alhifany, A.A. Clostridioides difficile infections in Saudi Arabia: Where are we standing? Saudi Pharm. J. 2020, 28, 1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Banawas, S.S. Clostridium difficile infections: A global overview of drug sensitivity and resistance mechanisms. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 8414257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Pike, C.M.; Theriot, C.M. Mechanisms of colonization resistance against Clostridioides difficile. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 223, S194–S200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Goudarzi, M.; Seyedjavadi, S.S.; Goudarzi, H.; Mehdizadeh Aghdam, E.; Nazeri, S. Clostridium difficile infection: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, risk factors, and therapeutic options. Scientifica 2014, 2014, 916826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Evans, C.T.; Safdar, N. Current trends in the epidemiology and outcomes of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2015, 60, S66–S71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lessa, F.C.; Mu, Y.; Bamberg, W.M.; Beldavs, Z.G.; Dumyati, G.K.; Dunn, J.R.; Farley, M.M.; Holzbauer, S.M.; Meek, J.I.; Phipps, E.C. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 825–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2019.
  13. Cohen, S.H.; Gerding, D.N.; Johnson, S.; Kelly, C.P.; Loo, V.G.; McDonald, L.C.; Pepin, J.; Wilcox, M.H.; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the society for healthcare epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the infectious diseases society of America (IDSA). Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol. 2010, 31, 431–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rupnik, M.; Wilcox, M.H.; Gerding, D.N. Clostridium difficile infection: New developments in epidemiology and pathogenesis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2009, 7, 526–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aljafel, N.A.; Al-Shaikhy, H.H.; Alnahdi, M.A.; Thabit, A.K. Incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection at a Saudi tertiary academic medical center and compliance with IDSA/SHEA, ACG, and ESCMID guidelines for treatment over a 10-year period. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 1156–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Al-Tawfiq, J.A.; Abed, M.S. Clostridium difficile-associated disease among patients in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2010, 8, 373–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Qutub, M.; Govindan, P.; Vattappillil, A. Effectiveness of a two-step testing algorithm for reliable and cost-effective detection of Clostridium difficile infection in a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. Med. Sci. (Basel) 2019, 7, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Collins, D.A.; Hawkey, P.M.; Riley, T.V. Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection in Asia. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2013, 2, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Smith, A. Outbreak of Clostridium difficile infection in an English hospital linked to hypertoxin-producing strains in Canada and the US. Wkly. Releases (1997–2007) 2005, 10, 2735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alzahrani, N.; Johani, S.A. Emergence of a highly resistant Clostridium difficile strain (NAP/BI/027) in a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia. Ann. Saudi Med. 2013, 33, 198–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mastrantonio, P.; Rupnik, M. Erratum to: Updates on Clostridium difficile in Europe. In Updates on Clostridium Difficile in Europe; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 8, p. E1. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tickler, I.A.; Goering, R.V.; Whitmore, J.D.; Lynn, A.N.; Persing, D.H.; Tenover, F.C.; Healthcare Associated Infection Consortium. Strain types and antimicrobial resistance patterns of Clostridium difficile isolates from the United States, 2011 to 2013. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 58, 4214–4218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Reil, M.; Hensgens, M.P.; Kuijper, E.J.; Jakobiak, T.; Gruber, H.; Kist, M.; Borgmann, S. Seasonality of Clostridium difficile infections in Southern Germany. Epidemiol. Infect. 2012, 140, 1787–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tenover, F.C.; Tickler, I.A.; Persing, D.H. Antimicrobial-resistant strains of Clostridium difficile from North America. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2012, 56, 2929–2932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Obuch-Woszczatynski, P.; Lachowicz, D.; Schneider, A.; Mol, A.; Pawlowska, J.; Ozdzenska-Milke, E.; Pruszczyk, P.; Wultanska, D.; Mlynarczyk, G.; Harmanus, C.; et al. Occurrence of Clostridium difficile PCR-ribotype 027 and it’s closely related PCR-ribotype 176 in hospitals in Poland in 2008-2010. Anaerobe 2014, 28, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhou, Y.; Burnham, C.A.; Hink, T.; Chen, L.; Shaikh, N.; Wollam, A.; Sodergren, E.; Weinstock, G.M.; Tarr, P.I.; Dubberke, E.R. Phenotypic and genotypic analysis of Clostridium difficile isolates: A single-center study. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2014, 52, 4260–4266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Lachowicz, D.; Pituch, H.; Obuch-Woszczatynski, P. Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Clostridium difficile strains belonging to different polymerase chain reaction ribotypes isolated in Poland in 2012. Anaerobe 2015, 31, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Pelaez, T.; Alcala, L.; Alonso, R.; Martin-Lopez, A.; Garcia-Arias, V.; Marin, M.; Bouza, E. In vitro activity of ramoplanin against Clostridium difficile, including strains with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin or with resistance to metronidazole. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 1157–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Surawicz, C.M.; Brandt, L.J.; Binion, D.G.; Ananthakrishnan, A.N.; Curry, S.R.; Gilligan, P.H.; McFarland, L.V.; Mellow, M.; Zuckerbraun, B.S. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 108, 478–498, quiz 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. McDonald, L.C.; Killgore, G.E.; Thompson, A.; Owens, R.C., Jr.; Kazakova, S.V.; Sambol, S.P.; Johnson, S.; Gerding, D.N. An epidemic, toxin gene-variant strain of Clostridium difficile. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 353, 2433–2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Muto, C.A.; Blank, M.K.; Marsh, J.W.; Vergis, E.N.; O’leary, M.M.; Shutt, K.A.; Pasculle, A.W.; Pokrywka, M.; Garcia, J.G.; Posey, K. Control of an outbreak of infection with the hypervirulent Clostridium difficile BI strain in a university hospital using a comprehensive “bundle” approach. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007, 45, 1266–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Clements, A.C.; Magalhães, R.J.S.; Tatem, A.J.; Paterson, D.L.; Riley, T.V. Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 027: Assessing the risks of further worldwide spread. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2010, 10, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Krutova, M.; Matejkova, J.; Tkadlec, J.; Nyc, O. Antibiotic profiling of Clostridium difficile ribotype 176—A multidrug resistant relative to C. difficile ribotype 027. Anaerobe 2015, 36, 88–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Goorhuis, A.; Bakker, D.; Corver, J.; Debast, S.B.; Harmanus, C.; Notermans, D.W.; Bergwerff, A.A.; Dekker, F.W.; Kuijper, E.J. Emergence of Clostridium difficile infection due to a new hypervirulent strain, polymerase chain reaction ribotype 078. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 47, 1162–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Goorhuis, A.; Van der Kooi, T.; Vaessen, N.; Dekker, F.W.; Van den Berg, R.; Harmanus, C.; van den Hof, S.; Notermans, D.W.; Kuijper, E.J. Spread and epidemiology of Clostridium difficile polymerase chain reaction ribotype 027/toxinotype III in The Netherlands. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007, 45, 695–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bauer, M.P.; Notermans, D.W.; van Benthem, B.H.; Brazier, J.S.; Wilcox, M.H.; Rupnik, M.; Monnet, D.L.; van Dissel, J.T.; Kuijper, E.J.; Group, E.S. Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: A hospital-based survey. Lancet 2011, 377, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Limbago, B.M.; Long, C.M.; Thompson, A.D.; Killgore, G.E.; Hannett, G.E.; Havill, N.L.; Mickelson, S.; Lathrop, S.; Jones, T.F.; Park, M.M.; et al. Clostridium difficile strains from community-associated infections. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 3004–3007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Keel, K.; Brazier, J.S.; Post, K.W.; Weese, S.; Songer, J.G. Prevalence of PCR ribotypes among Clostridium difficile isolates from pigs, calves, and other species. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 1963–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kelly, C.P.; LaMont, J.T. Clostridium difficile—more difficult than ever. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 1932–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Huang, H.; Wu, S.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, H.; Palmgren, A.C.; Weintraub, A.; Nord, C.E. Molecular and clinical characteristics of Clostridium difficile infection in a University Hospital in Shanghai, China. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 47, 1606–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, J.H.; Lee, Y.; Lee, K.; Riley, T.V.; Kim, H. The changes of PCR ribotype and antimicrobial resistance of Clostridium difficile in a tertiary care hospital over 10 years. J. Med. Microbiol. 2014, 63, 819–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kim, J.; Kang, J.O.; Pai, H.; Choi, T.Y. Association between PCR ribotypes and antimicrobial susceptibility among Clostridium difficile isolates from healthcare-associated infections in South Korea. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2012, 40, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gerding, D.N.; Muto, C.A.; Owens, R.C., Jr. Measures to control and prevent Clostridium difficile infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 46, S43–S49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Barbut, F.; Petit, J.C. Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile-associated infections. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2001, 7, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mylonakis, E.; Ryan, E.T.; Calderwood, S.B. Clostridium difficile—Associated diarrhea: A review. Arch. Intern. Med. 2001, 161, 525–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wistrom, J.; Norrby, S.R.; Myhre, E.B.; Eriksson, S.; Granstrom, G.; Lagergren, L.; Englund, G.; Nord, C.E.; Svenungsson, B. Frequency of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in 2462 antibiotic-treated hospitalized patients: A prospective study. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2001, 47, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Noren, T.; Tang-Feldman, Y.J.; Cohen, S.H.; Silva, J., Jr.; Olcen, P. Clindamycin resistant strains of Clostridium difficile isolated from cases of C. difficile associated diarrhea (CDAD) in a hospital in Sweden. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2002, 42, 149–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Johnson, S.; Samore, M.H.; Farrow, K.A.; Killgore, G.E.; Tenover, F.C.; Lyras, D.; Rood, J.I.; DeGirolami, P.; Baltch, A.L.; Rafferty, M.E.; et al. Epidemics of diarrhea caused by a clindamycin-resistant strain of Clostridium difficile in four hospitals. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 341, 1645–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Roberts, S.; Heffernan, H.; Al Anbuky, N.; Pope, C.; Paviour, S.; Camp, T.; Swager, T. Molecular epidemiology and susceptibility profiles of Clostridium difficile in New Zealand, 2009. N. Z. Med. J. 2011, 124, 45–51. [Google Scholar]
  50. Huang, H.; Weintraub, A.; Fang, H.; Nord, C.E. Antimicrobial resistance in Clostridium difficile. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2009, 34, 516–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Imwattana, K.; Knight, D.R.; Kullin, B.; Collins, D.A.; Putsathit, P.; Kiratisin, P.; Riley, T.V. Antimicrobial resistance in Clostridium difficile ribotype 017. Expert Rev. Anti. Infect. Ther. 2020, 18, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Evans, M.E.; Simbartl, L.A.; Kralovic, S.M.; Jain, R.; Roselle, G.A. Clostridium difficile infections in Veterans Health Administration acute care facilities. Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol. 2014, 35, 1037–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Reeves, J.S.; Evans, M.E.; Simbartl, L.A.; Kralovic, S.M.; Kelly, A.A.; Jain, R.; Roselle, G.A. Clostridium difficile infections in Veterans Health Administration long-term care facilities. Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016, 37, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bakken, T.L.; Sageng, H. Mental health nursing of adults with intellectual disabilities and mental illness: A review of empirical studies 1994–2013. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2016, 30, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bouza, E. Consequences of Clostridium difficile infection: Understanding the healthcare burden. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pelaez, T.; Alcala, L.; Alonso, R.; Rodriguez-Creixems, M.; Garcia-Lechuz, J.M.; Bouza, E. Reassessment of Clostridium difficile susceptibility to metronidazole and vancomycin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2002, 46, 1647–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Teasley, D.; Olson, M.; Gebhard, R.; Gerding, D.N.; Peterson, L.R.; Schwartz, M.; Lee, J., Jr. Prospective randomised trial of metronidazole versus vancomycin for Clostridium-difficile-associated diarrhoea and colitis. Lancet 1983, 322, 1043–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dworczyński, A.; Sokół, B.; Meisel-Mikołajczyk, F. Antibiotic resistance of Clostridium difficile isolates. Cytobios 1990, 65, 149–153. [Google Scholar]
  59. Tkhawkho, L.; Nitzan, O.; Pastukh, N.; Brodsky, D.; Jackson, K.; Peretz, A. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Clostridium difficile isolates in Israel. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2017, 10, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fraga, E.G.; Nicodemo, A.C.; Sampaio, J.L. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Brazilian Clostridium difficile strains determined by agar dilution and disk diffusion. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 2016, 20, 476–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Baghani, A.; Ghourchian, S.; Aliramezani, A.; Yaseri, M.; Mesdaghinia, A.; Douraghi, M. Highly antibiotic-resistant Clostridium difficile isolates from Iranian patients. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 125, 1518–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kouzegaran, S.; Ganjifard, M.; Tanha, A. Detection, ribotyping and antimicrobial resistance properties of Clostridium difficile strains isolated from the cases of diarrhea. Mater. Sociomed. 2016, 28, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Goudarzi, M.; Goudarzi, H.; Alebouyeh, M.; Rad, M.; Mehr, F.; Zali, M.R.; Aslani, M.M. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Clostridium difficile clinical isolates in Iran. Iran. Red. Crescent. Med. J. 2013, 15, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Banawas, S.; Sarker, M.R. l-lysine (pH 6.0) induces germination of spores of Clostridium perfringens type F isolates carrying chromosomal or plasmid-borne enterotoxin gene. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 123, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Olguin-Araneda, V.; Banawas, S.; Sarker, M.R.; Paredes-Sabja, D. Recent advances in germination of Clostridium spores. Res. Microbiol. 2015, 166, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Uzal, F.A.; Freedman, J.C.; Shrestha, A.; Theoret, J.R.; Garcia, J.; Awad, M.M.; Adams, V.; Moore, R.J.; Rood, J.I.; McClane, B.A. Towards an understanding of the role of Clostridium perfringens toxins in human and animal disease. Future Microbiol. 2014, 9, 361–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Rood, J.I. General physiological and virulence properties of the pathogenic Clostridia. In Clostridial Diseases of Animals, 1st ed.; Uzal, F.A., Songer, J.G., Prescott, J.F., Popoff, M.R., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; Volume 7, pp. 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  68. Li, J.; Paredes-Sabja, D.; Sarker, M.R.; McClane, B.A. Clostridium perfringens sporulation and sporulation-associated toxin production. Microbiol. Spectr. 2016, 4, 4-3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Banawas, S.; Paredes-Sabja, D.; Setlow, P.; Sarker, M.R. Characterization of germinants and their receptors for spores of non-food-borne Clostridium perfringens strain F4969. Microbiology 2016, 162, 1972–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Banawas, S.; Paredes-Sabja, D.; Korza, G.; Li, Y.; Hao, B.; Setlow, P.; Sarker, M.R. The Clostridium perfringens germinant receptor protein GerKC is located in the spore inner membrane and is crucial for spore germination. J. Bacteriol. 2013, 195, 5084–5091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Li, J.; McClane, B.A. Comparative effects of osmotic, sodium nitrite-induced, and pH-induced stress on growth and survival of Clostridium perfringens type A isolates carrying chromosomal or plasmid-borne enterotoxin genes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 7620–7625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Songer, J.G. Clostridial enteric diseases of domestic animals. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1996, 9, 216–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rood, J.I.; Adams, V.; Lacey, J.; Lyras, D.; McClane, B.A.; Melville, S.B.; Moore, R.J.; Popoff, M.R.; Sarker, M.R.; Songer, J.G.; et al. Expansion of the Clostridium perfringens toxin-based typing scheme. Anaerobe 2018, 53, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. McClane, B.; Uzal, F.A.; Miyakawa, M.F.; Lyerly, D.; Wilkins, T. The enterotoxic clostridia. In The Prokaryotes; Dworkin, M., Falkow, S., Rosenberg, E., Schleifer, K.-H., Stackebrandt, E., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 698–752. [Google Scholar]
  75. Revitt-Mills, S.A.; Rood, J.I.; Adams, V. Clostridium perfringens extracellular toxins and enzymes: 20 and counting. Microbiol. Aust. 2015, 36, 114–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Asha, N.J.; Wilcox, M.H. Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium perfringens antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. J. Med. Microbiol. 2002, 51, 891–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sarker, M.R.; Carman, R.J.; McClane, B.A. Inactivation of the gene (cpe) encoding Clostridium perfringens enterotoxin eliminates the ability of two cpe-positive C. perfringens type A human gastrointestinal disease isolates to affect rabbit ileal loops. Mol. Microbiol. 1999, 33, 946–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Carman, R.J. Clostridium perfringens spontaneous and antibiotic associated diarrhoea of man and other animals. Rev. Med. Microbiol. 1997, 8, S43–S45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Borriello, S.P.; Larson, H.E.; Welch, A.R.; Barclay, F.; Stringer, M.F.; Bartholomew, B.A. Enterotoxigenic Clostridium perfringens: A possible cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Lancet 1984, 1, 305–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Banaszkiewicz, A.; Kadzielska, J.; Gawronska, A.; Pituch, H.; Obuch-Woszczatynski, P.; Albrecht, P.; Mlynarczyk, G.; Radzikowski, A. Enterotoxigenic Clostridium perfringens infection and pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J. Crohns Colitis 2014, 8, 276–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Freedman, J.C.; Shrestha, A.; McClane, B.A. Clostridium perfringens Enterotoxin: Action, Genetics, and Translational Applications. Toxins (Basel) 2016, 8, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Collie, R.E.; Kokai-Kun, J.F.; McClane, B.A. Phenotypic characterization of enterotoxigenic Clostridium perfringens isolates from non-foodborne human gastrointestinal diseases. Anaerobe 1998, 4, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cornillot, E.; Saint-Joanis, B.; Daube, G.; Katayama, S.; Granum, P.E.; Canard, B.; Cole, S.T. The enterotoxin gene (cpe) of Clostridium perfringens can be chromosomal or plasmid-borne. Mol. Microbiol. 1995, 15, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Sarker, M.R.; Shivers, R.P.; Sparks, S.G.; Juneja, V.K.; McClane, B.A. Comparative experiments to examine the effects of heating on vegetative cells and spores of Clostridium perfringens isolates carrying plasmid genes versus chromosomal enterotoxin genes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 3234–3240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Hoffmann, S.; Batz, M.B.; Morris, J.G., Jr. Annual cost of illness and quality-adjusted life year losses in the United States due to 14 foodborne pathogens. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 1292–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lynch, M.; Painter, J.; Woodruff, R.; Braden, C. Surveillance for Foodborne-disease Outbreaks: United States, 1998–2002. MMWR Surveill. Summ. 2006, 55, 1–42. [Google Scholar]
  87. Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.-A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—Major pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Brynestad, S.; Granum, P.E. Evidence that Tn 5565, which includes the enterotoxin gene in Clostridium perfringens, can have a circular form which may be a transposition intermediate. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1999, 170, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Koch, C.L.; Derby, P.; Abratt, V.R. In-vitro antibiotic susceptibility and molecular analysis of anaerobic bacteria isolated in Cape Town, South Africa. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1998, 42, 245–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Camacho, N.; Espinoza, C.; Rodríguez, C.; Rodríguez, E. Isolates of Clostridium perfringens recovered from Costa Rican patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhoea are mostly enterotoxin-negative and susceptible to first-choice antimicrobials. J. Med. Microbiol. 2008, 57, 343347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Akhi, M.T.; Bidar Asl, S.; Pirzadeh, T.; Naghili, B.; Yeganeh, F.; Memar, Y.; Mohammadzadeh, Y. Antibiotic sensitivity of Clostridium perfringens isolated from faeces in Tabriz, Iran. Jundishapur. J. Microbiol. 2015, 8, e20863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Tansuphasiri, U.; Matra, W.; Sangsuk, L. Antimicrobial resistance among Clostridium perfringens isolated from various sources in Thailand. Southeast. Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2005, 36, 954–961. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  93. Osman, K.M.; Elhariri, M. Antibiotic resistance of Clostridium perfringens isolates from broiler chickens in Egypt. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2013, 32, 841–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Martel, A.; Devriese, L.A.; Cauwerts, K.; De Gussem, K.; Decostere, A.; Haesebrouck, F. Susceptibility of Clostridium perfringens strains from broiler chickens to antibiotics and anticoccidials. Avian Pathol. 2004, 33, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Milton, A.A.P.; Sanjukta, R.; Gogoi, A.P.; Momin, K.M.; Priya, G.B.; Das, S.; Ghatak, S.; Sen, A.; Kandpal, B.K. Prevalence, molecular typing and antibiotic resistance of Clostridium perfringens in free range ducks in Northeast India. Anaerobe 2020, 64, 102242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nigam, P.K.; Nigam, A. Botulinum toxin. Indian J. Dermatol. 2010, 55, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Arnon, S.S.; Schechter, R.; Inglesby, T.V.; Henderson, D.A.; Bartlett, J.G.; Ascher, M.S.; Eitzen, E.; Fine, A.D.; Hauer, J.; Layton, M. Botulinum toxin as a biological weapon: Medical and public health management. JAMA 2001, 285, 1059–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Peck, M.W. Clostridium botulinum and the safety of minimally heated, chilled foods: An emerging issue? J. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 101, 556–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Sobel, J. Botulism. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2005, 41, 1167–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. CDC. Botulism Annual Summary; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2017.
  101. Arias, C.A.; Murray, B.E. Antibiotic-resistant bugs in the 21st century—A clinical super-challenge. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 360, 439–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Boyanova, L.; Kolarov, R.; Mitov, I. Antimicrobial resistance and the management of anaerobic infections. Rev. Anti. Infect. Ther. 2007, 5, 685–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Dezfulian, M.; Dowell, V.R. Cultural and physiological characteristics and antimicrobial susceptibility of Clostridium botulinum isolates from foodborne and infant botulism cases. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 1980, 11, 604–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Bennett, J.E.; Dolin, R.; Blaser, M.J. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases: 2-Volume Set, 8th ed.; Elsevier Health Sciences: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  105. Sharma, D.S.; Shah, M.B. A Rare Case of Localized Tetanus. Indian J. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 22, 678–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Cohen, J.E.; Wang, R.; Shen, R.F.; Wu, W.W.; Keller, J.E. Comparative pathogenomics of Clostridium tetani. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0182909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. ECDC. Disease Factsheet about Tetanus. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 2021. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/tetanus/facts (accessed on 7 July 2022).
  108. WHO. Tetanus vaccines: WHO position paper, February 2017–recommendations. Vaccine 2018, 36, 3573–3575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hanif, H.; Anjum, A.; Ali, N.; Jamal, A.; Imran, M.; Ahmad, B.; Ali, M.I. Isolation and antibiogram of Clostridium tetani from clinically diagnosed tetanus patients. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2015, 93, 752–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Fayez, M.; El-Ghareeb, W.R.; Elmoslemany, A.; Alsunaini, S.J.; Alkafafy, M.; Alzahrani, O.M.; Mahmoud, S.F.; Elsohaby, I. Genotyping and antimicrobial susceptibility of Clostridium perfringens and Clostridioides difficile in camel minced meat. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Attia, A.E.T. Retail chicken meats as potential sources of Clostridioides difficile in Al-Jouf, Saudi Arabia. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2021, 15, 972–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Taha, A.E. Raw animal meats as potential sources of Clostridium difficile in Al-Jouf, Saudi Arabia. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2021, 41, 883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Saber, T.; Hawash, Y.A.; Ismail, K.A.; Khalifa, A.S.; Alsharif, K.F.; Alghamdi, S.A.; Saber, T.; Eed, E.M. Prevalence, toxin gene profile, genotypes and antibiotic susceptibility of Clostridium difficile in a tertiary care hospital in Taif, Saudi Arabia. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2020, 38, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Alqumber, M.A. Clostridium difficile in retail baskets, trolleys, conveyor belts, and plastic bags in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med. J. 2014, 35, 1274–1277. [Google Scholar]
  115. Bakri, M. Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in raw cow, sheep, and goat meat in Jazan, Saudi Arabia. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 25, 783–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Shajan, S.E.; Hashim, M.F.; Michael, A. Prevalence of Clostridium difficile toxin in diarrhoeal stool samples of patients from a general hospital in eastern province, Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Med. Health Res. 2014, 3, 302–308. [Google Scholar]
  117. Fayez, M.; Elsohaby, I.; Al-Marri, T.; Zidan, K.; Aldoweriej, A.; El-Sergany, E.; Elmoslemany, A. Genotyping and antimicrobial susceptibility of Clostridium perfringens isolated from dromedary camels, pastures and herders. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2020, 70, 101460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Qadri, S.H.; Ueno, Y.; Ostrawski, S. Anaerobic infections at a referral center: Incidence, etiology, and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern. Ann. Saudi Med. 1989, 9, 551–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Owens, R.C., Jr.; Donskey, C.J.; Gaynes, R.P.; Loo, V.G.; Muto, C.A. Antimicrobial-associated risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 46, S19–S31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Peng, Z.; Jin, D.; Kim, H.B.; Stratton, C.W.; Wu, B.; Tang, Y.W.; Sun, X. Update on antimicrobial resistance in Clostridium difficile: Resistance mechanisms and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 55, 1998–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ofosu, A. Clostridium difficile infection: A review of current and emerging therapies. Ann. Gastroenterol. 2016, 29, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Khademi, F.; Sahebkar, A. The prevalence of antibiotic-resistant Clostridium species in Iran: A meta-analysis. Pathog. Glob. Health 2019, 113, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Bartlett, J.G.; Onderdonk, A.B.; Cisneros, R.L.; Kasper, D.L. Clindamycin-associated colitis due to a toxin-producing species of Clostridium in hamsters. J. Infect. Dis. 1977, 136, 701–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Salvarani, F.M.; Silva, R.O.S.; Pires, P.S.; Cruz, E.C.D.; Albefaro, I.S.; Guedes, R.M.D.; Lobato, F.C.F. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Clostridium Perfringens isolated from piglets with or without diarrhea in Brazil. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2012, 43, 1030–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Li, J.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, D.; Zhang, S.; Sun, Z.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Wu, C. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Clostridium perfringens in chickens and pigs from Beijing and Shanxi, China. Vet. Microbiol. 2020, 252, 108932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Tassanaudom, U.; Toorisut, Y.; Tuitemwong, K.; Jittaprasartsin, C.; Wangroongsarb, P.; Mahakarnchanakul, W. Prevalence of toxigenic Clostridium perfringens strains isolated from dried spur pepper in Thailand. Int. Food Res. J. 2017, 24, 955–962. [Google Scholar]
  127. Silva, R.O.; Ribeiro, M.G.; Palhares, M.S.; Borges, A.S.; Maranhao, R.P.; Silva, M.X.; Lucas, T.M.; Olivo, G.; Lobato, F.C. Detection of A/B toxin and isolation of Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens from foals. Equine Vet. J. 2013, 45, 671–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Roberts, S.A.; Shore, K.P.; Paviour, S.D.; Holland, D.; Morris, A.J. Antimicrobial susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria in New Zealand: 1999–2003. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2006, 57, 992–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Leal, J.; Gregson, D.B.; Ross, T.; Church, D.L.; Laupland, K.B. Epidemiology of Clostridium species bacteremia in Calgary, Canada, 2000–2006. J. Infect. 2008, 57, 198–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antibiotics 11 01165 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic plan of the article selection process.
Figure 1. Schematic plan of the article selection process.
Antibiotics 11 01165 g001
Antibiotics 11 01165 g002a 550Antibiotics 11 01165 g002b 550
Figure 2. Forest plots of the random-effects meta-analysis of the ten works included in this study. (a) CIP, (b) MTZ, (c) CLI, (d) LVX, (e) PEN, (f) TRT, (g) ERY.
Figure 2. Forest plots of the random-effects meta-analysis of the ten works included in this study. (a) CIP, (b) MTZ, (c) CLI, (d) LVX, (e) PEN, (f) TRT, (g) ERY.
Antibiotics 11 01165 g002aAntibiotics 11 01165 g002b
Table
Table 1. Search terms used in the electronic database search.
Table 1. Search terms used in the electronic database search.
Inclusion CriteriumSearch Terms
Antibiotic resistanceDrug resistance, Antimicrobial resistance
Clostridium spp.C. difficile, C. botulinum, C. tetani, C. perfringens
Saudi ArabiaKingdom of Saudi Arabia, SA, KSA, Saudi Arabia
Table
Table 2. Antibiotic Susceptibility of Clostridium spp. isolated in Saudi Arabia *.
Table 2. Antibiotic Susceptibility of Clostridium spp. isolated in Saudi Arabia *.
Province/
City		YearSample Type
(Origin)		Strain (n)Clostridium spp.ASTAntibiotic Resistance (%)
CIPMTZCEFGENCLILVXPENVANTRTERYOXYAMPMXFLINReference
Al-Ahsa2019–2020Camels4C. difficileBroth dilution NDNDNDND25ND25ND75NDNDND25ND[110]
Al-Jouf2019Chickens 11C. difficileE-testsND0NDND0NDND00NDNDND18ND[111]
Al-Jouf2019Camels, cows, sheep, and goats15C. difficileE-testsND0NDND0NDND00NDNDND20ND[112]
Al-Taif2019Stools74C. difficileE-testsND0NDND54NDND021.6NDNDND48.6ND[113]
Al-Bahah and Al-Taif2011Baskets, trolleys, conveyor belts, and plastic bags12C. difficileE-testsND0NDND58100ND0NDNDNDNDNDND[114]
Jazan2015Cow, sheep, and goat meat18C. difficileDisk diffusion270ND8333NDND02850ND72NDND[115]
Eastern province2011–2012Stools19C. difficileE-tests30NDNDNDND30NDNDNDNDNDND30ND[116]
Al-Ahsa2019–2020Camels14C. perfringensBroth dilution ND14NDND35ND35ND56NDNDNDNDND[110]
Eastern province2018Dromedary camels, pastures, and herders262C. perfringensBroth dilution ND2783ND12ND73NDND6247NDND47[117]
Riyadh1988Wounds, blood, body fluids, and female genitalia23C. perfringensDisk elutionNDNDNDND0ND00NDNDNDNDNDND[118]
* AMP, ampicillin; AST, antimicrobial susceptibility test; CEF, ceftiofur; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CLI, clindamycin; ERY, erythromycin; GEN, gentamicin; LIN, lincomycin; LVX, levofloxacin; MTZ, metronidazole; MXF, moxifloxacin; ND, not determined; OXY, oxytetracycline; PEN, penicillin; TRT, tetracycline; VAN, vancomycin.
Table
Table 3. Pooled proportion of resistance for Clostridium species.
Table 3. Pooled proportion of resistance for Clostridium species.
AntibioticNo. of StudiesPooled Proportion of Resistance (95% CI)I2 (%) *p
CIP20.30 (0.12–0.57)00.8
MTZ70.37 (0.22–0.54)93<0.01
CLI90.34 (0.23–0.47)87<0.01
LVX20.50 (0.00–1.00)830.02
PEN40.45 (0.15–0.78)92<0.01
TRT60.34 (0.20–0.51)500.07
ERY20.61 (0.25–0.88)00.32
* I2: indicates the level of heterogeneity.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Banawas, S.S. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Frequency of Antibiotic-Resistant Clostridium Species in Saudi Arabia. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1165. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11091165

AMA Style

Banawas SS. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Frequency of Antibiotic-Resistant Clostridium Species in Saudi Arabia. Antibiotics. 2022; 11(9):1165. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11091165

Chicago/Turabian Style

Banawas, Saeed S. 2022. "Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Frequency of Antibiotic-Resistant Clostridium Species in Saudi Arabia" Antibiotics 11, no. 9: 1165. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11091165

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