Volume 11, Number 8—August 2005
Dispatch
Drug-resistant Diarrheogenic Escherichia coli, Mexico
Table 2
No. patients | Tet, n (%) | Amp, n (%) | TMP-SMX, n (%) | Chlor, n (%) | MDR, n (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ETEC (n = 17) | 16 (94) | 15 (88) | 12 (71) | 2 (12) | 11 (65) |
EAEC (n = 16) | 15 (94) | 13 (81) | 14 (88) | 3 (19) | 11 (69) |
aEPEC (n = 13) | 6 (46) | 5 (38) | 5 (38) | 2 (15) | 5 (38) |
STEC (n = 11) | 9 (81) | 8 (72) | 7 (63) | 4 (36) | 7 (63) |
EPEC (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 3 (100) | 2 (67) | 0 | 2 (67) |
EIEC (n = 2) | 1 (50) | 1 (50) | 0 | 1 (50) | 1 (50) |
Total (n = 62) | 51 (82) | 45 (73) | 40 (65) | 12 (19) | 36 (58) |
*All isolates were susceptible to ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime. One STEC (9% of STEC or 2% of all isolates) was resistant to gentamicin; all other isolates were susceptible.
†Tet, tetracycline; Amp, ampicillin; TMP-SMX, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; Chlor, chloramphenicol; MDR, multidrug resistant; ETEC, enterotoxigenic E. coli; EAEC, enteroaggregative E. coli; aEPEC, atypical enteropathogenic E. coli; STEC, Shiga toxin–producing E. coli; EPEC, enteropathogenic E. coli; EIEC, enteroinvasive E. coli.
Page created: April 23, 2012
Page updated: April 23, 2012
Page reviewed: April 23, 2012
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.