Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Addendum
Announcement
Announcements
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Books Received
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Corrrespondence
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Editorial Podcast
Errata
Erratum
FORM IV
GUIDELINES
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Panel of Reviewers (2006)
Panel of Reviewers (2007)
Panel of Reviewers (2009) Guidelines for Contributors
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Method
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Authors’ response
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Public Notice
Research Brief
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Reviewers
Short Paper
Some Forthcoming Scientific Events
Special Article
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
View Point
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Addendum
Announcement
Announcements
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Books Received
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Corrrespondence
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Editorial Podcast
Errata
Erratum
FORM IV
GUIDELINES
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Panel of Reviewers (2006)
Panel of Reviewers (2007)
Panel of Reviewers (2009) Guidelines for Contributors
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Method
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Authors’ response
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Public Notice
Research Brief
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Reviewers
Short Paper
Some Forthcoming Scientific Events
Special Article
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
View Point
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
163 (
3
); 379-386
doi:
10.25259/IJMR_2625_2025

Extensively drug-resistant gram-negative sepsis in a neonatal intensive care unit from western India: A retrospective cohort study

Department of Neonatology, VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India
Department of Neonatology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
Department of Neonatology, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

#Equal contribution

For correspondence: Dr Neeraj Gupta, Department of Neonatology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur 342 005, Rajasthan, India e-mail: neerajpgi@yahoo.co.in

Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Yadav B, Gupta N, Sasidharan R, Tak V, Sharma A, Nag VL, et al. Extensively drug-resistant gram-negative sepsis in NICU from LMIC: A retrospective cohort study. Indian J Med Res. 2026;163:379-86. doi: 10.25259/IJMR_2625_2025

Abstract

Background and objectives

Extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Gram-negative bacterial sepsis is an emerging threat in neonatal intensive care units (NICU). We aimed to determine the epidemiology, pathogen profile, and outcome of neonates with XDR Gram-negative sepsis.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a newly established NICU in Western India. Data of all neonates admitted between July 2016 and June 2021 were analysed. Standard CDC definitions were used to classify antimicrobial resistance.

Results

Among 1230 neonates, 31.4% (n=387) had clinically suspected sepsis and 11.5% (n=141) had culture-positive sepsis, accounting for 194 sepsis episodes. Gram-negative sepsis occurred in 117 neonates, of whom 38.4% (45/117) had XDR Gram-negative sepsis. One-third of these isolates were XDR, predominantly Klebsiella (n=21,44%), Acinetobacter (n=18,37%), and Escherichia species (n=6, 13%). Nearly 60% (28/48) of XDR Gram-negative isolates were obtained from outborn neonates, and 60% (n=17) were isolated within 48 h of admission. Mortality was significantly higher in neonates with XDR sepsis (21/45, 46.7%) compared with multidrug-resistant (13/41, 31.7%) and drug-sensitive Gram-negative sepsis (4/31, 12.9%) (P=0.009).

Interpretation and conclusions

The high burden of extensively drug-resistant Gram-negative sepsis and its association with increased mortality underscore the urgent need for strengthened antimicrobial stewardship and surveillance in neonatal intensive care units.

Keywords

Extensively drug-resistant
Gram-negative bacteria
Low- and middle-income countries
Multidrug-resistant
Neonatal sepsis

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global health threat, disproportionately affecting low-resource settings and contributing substantially to mortality and economic loss.1,2 The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates 700,000 annual deaths, potentially rising to 10 million by 2050, and ranks AMR among the top ten global health threats.3-5 AMR is classified as multidrug-resistant (MDR), extensively drug-resistant (XDR), and pan-drug-resistant (PDR).6

Over the past decade, MDR gram-negative bacterial sepsis has emerged as a major challenge across all age groups, with a particularly high burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).2,7-10 Neonates are particularly vulnerable to infections caused by antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. A recent point-prevalence study reported resistance to WHO-recommended first-line antibiotics in nearly 40% of neonatal sepsis isolates, while the NeoOBS study demonstrated widespread resistance among Gram-negative bacterial isolates (predominantly Klebsiella and Acinetobacter species), to both first-line regimens and carbapenems.11,12

In South Asia, MDR has been reported in 50–80% of Gram-negative bacterial isolates from neonatal units.10-13 Although most MDR strains were previously susceptible to carbapenems and polymyxins, the emergence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and polymyxin-resistant Klebsiella has raised serious concerns regarding XDR and PDR sepsis.14-16 While XDR infections are increasingly described in adults, data on their epidemiology and outcomes in neonates remain limited.14-19 This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology, pathogen profile, and outcomes of neonates with XDR Gram-negative bacterial sepsis.

Methods

This retrospective study was undertaken by the department of Neonatology at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. The study was approved by the Institute’s ethics committee. Data were retrieved from the unit’s electronic database, and confidentiality was maintained.

Study design and setting

This retrospective cohort study enrolled all neonates admitted between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2021, to a newly established tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in Western India. This NICU caters to both inborn neonates and outborn referrals from district hospitals, and peripheral level II and level III NICUs across Western Rajasthan.

Study population

Data for all admitted neonates were reviewed, and those with culture-positive sepsis were further analysed. Neonates were followed until discharge or death, with no loss to in-hospital follow-up. The study population comprised neonates with culture-positive sepsis caused by XDR Gram-negative bacterial. Demographic details, prior hospitalisation, clinical features, pathogen profile, and outcomes were recorded using a standardised case record form. Information on sepsis risk factors, laboratory parameters, respiratory and inotropic support, organ dysfunction, and duration of hospitalisation was collected. Missing data were minimal and handled using available-case analysis without imputation.

Study procedures

Sepsis was suspected based on perinatal risk factors or clinical signs using the Young Infant Study Algorithm, a WHO-supported tool for identifying serious bacterial infection in young infants.8,10,20 Blood culture and sepsis screen were obtained before initiating antibiotics. The sepsis screen included a complete blood count and C-reactive protein. At least 1 mL of blood was collected aseptically and inoculated into BD BACTEC™ Peds Plus™ (Becton, Dickinson and Company, USA) bottles, which were transported immediately to the microbiology laboratory and incubated in an automated system capable of detecting low bacterial loads (1–2 CFU/mL). Positive alerts were communicated promptly via the hospital information system. Cultures were considered sterile if no growth was detected after five days. Repeat cultures during the same episode were obtained if clinically indicated.

Positive samples were sub-culturedon 5% blood agar and MacConkey agar. Pathogens were identified using standard microbiological techniques like Gram staining, biochemical tests, and colony morphology. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by Kirby Bauer disk diffusion method as per clinical laboratory standard institute standards (CLSI).21,22 From May 2019 onwards, organism identification and susceptibility testing transitioned to the VITEK automated system, while maintaining CLSI interpretative criteria to ensure consistency across the study period. This shift improved the speed and standardisation of results; however, susceptibility interpretation continued to follow CLSI breakpoints, ensuring methodological consistency throughout the study period.

Lumbar puncture was performed in suspected sepsis unless contraindicated. Antibiotics were initiated as per the unit’s policy (Supplementary Table I). Maternal high vaginal swabs and placental histopathology were obtained when intra-amniotic infection was suspected. However, for this study, maternal data was retrieved only for neonates with XDR Gram-negative bacterial sepsis.

Supplementary Table I

Outcome

The primary outcome was the proportion of neonates with XDR Gram-negative bacterial sepsis. Secondary outcomes included pathogen profile, AMR pattern, clinical profile, and the case fatality rate (CFR) of XDR Gram-negative sepsis. Standard definitions were used based on adapted National Healthcare Safety Network criteria.8,20 The isolates were classified as MDR, XDR, or PDR, using joint CDC–ECDC definitions.6

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Categorical and continuous variables were summarised as proportions and mean (±SD) or median (IQR), respectively. Appropriate statistical tests were applied. Outcomes were reported with 95% confidence intervals, and CFR was defined as the proportion of neonates who died from sepsis within 21 days of onset in each sepsis category.

Results

During the study period, 1230 neonates (excluding readmissions) were admitted to the NICU, 973 (79%) were inborn. Sepsis was diagnosed in 387 neonates (31.5%); 141 (36.4%) had culture-positive sepsis, representing 11.5% of total admissions. These neonates contributed 194 culture-positive sepsis episodes. GNB accounted for 143 (73.7%)isolates, of which 72.7% were MDR, including 33.6% identified as XDR (Figure).

Flow of study
Figure.
Flow of study

XDR Gram-negative sepsis occurred in 45 neonates (31.9% of culture-positive cases), contributing 48 episodes (24.7% of all isolates). The mean (±SD) gestational age and birth weight were 34±5 wk and 1831±803 g, respectively. Two-thirds were male, and 57.8% (n=26) were outborn referrals, with 60.7% (n=17) of isolates identified from blood cultures obtained within 48 h of admission (Table I). The median (IQR) postnatal age at culture positivity was 10.5 (5–23) days; 20.8% of episodes were early-onset. Compared with MDR and non-MDR groups, male sex and major congenital malformations were more frequent in the XDR group (Table I). Maternal clinical data were available for a subset of neonates with XDR Gram-negative bacterial sepsis. Histologically confirmed chorioamnionitis was identified in two mothers (Table II); in one case, XDR Klebsiella pneumoniae was isolated from both placental tissue and the neonatal blood culture.

Table I. Clinical profile of neonates with extensively drug resistant (XDR), multi-drug resistant (MDR), and susceptible Gram-negative Bacterial sepsis
Variables

Neonates with susceptible Gram-negative Bacterial sepsis (N=31)

[Total episodes (n=39)]

Neonates with multi-drug resistant Gram-negative Bacterial sepsis (excludes extensively drug resistant) (N=41)

[Total episodes (n=56)]

Neonates with extensively drug resistant Gram-negative Bacterial sepsis (N=45)

[Total episodes (n=48)]

P value
Gestational age (wk)* 32.7 (4.2) 31.7 (4.6) 34 (5) 0.420
Gestation-wise distribution (wk), N (%) 0.155

<28

28 to <32

32 to <37

>37

4 (12.9)

9 (29)

12 (38.7)

6 (19.4)

10 (24.4)

13 (31.7)

12 (29.3)

6 (14.6)

7 (15.6)

5 (11.1)

21 (46.7)

12 (26.7)

Birth weight (g)* 1726 (842) 1590 (810) 1831 (803) 0.511
Birth weight distribution (grams), N (%) 0.479

<1000

1000 to <1500

1500 to <2500

>2500

9 (29)

5 (16.1)

11 (35.5)

6 (19.4)

12 (29.3)

11 (26.8)

11 (26.8)

7 (17.1)

8 (17.8)

7 (15.6)

21 (46.7)

9 (20)

Male, N (%) 15 (48.4) 23 (56.1) 31 (68.9) 0.020
Vaginal delivery, N (%) 21 (67.7) 30 (73.2) 24 (53.3) 0.917
Multiple births, N (%) 3 (9.7) 4 (9.8) 3 (6.7) 0.965
Major malformations, N (%) 1 (3.2) 11 (26.8) 21 (46.7) <0.001
Outborn neonates, N (%) 14 (45.2) 20 (48.8) 26 (57.8) 0.110
Postnatal age at first positive blood culture (days)# 8 (3, 12) 9 (6, 24) 10.5 (5, 23) 0.273
Isolation before 72 h of post-natal age; n (%) 12 (30.8) 8 (14.3) 10 (20.8) 0.152
Number of isolates in outborn neonates; n (%) 15 (38.5) 24 (42.9) 28 (58.3) 0.135

Isolation within 48-h of admission in Outborn neonates

Duration of outside hospital stay (days)#

6 (40)

3 (1, 5.5)

14 (58.3)

8 (4, 13)

17 (60.7)

3 (1, 6)

0.103

0.456

N (%) represents the percentage of neonates with specified variable.

n (%) represents percentage of sepsis episodes/isolates with the specified variable.

P value denotes the comparison across the three groups (susceptible, MDR, and XDR GNB sepsis). A P< 0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference among the groups for that variable.

*Data expressed as mean (standard deviation). #data expressed as median (interquartile range).

MDR, multidrug resistant; XDR, extensively drug-resistant

Table II. Risk factors, clinical presentation, laboratory variables, and outcome of the study cohort of extensively drug resistant Gram-negative Bacterial sepsis (n= 45)
Variables Number of neonates (n=45),
Number of episodes (n=48)
Maternal risk factors of EONS; N (%)

Urinary tract infection in last trimester

Preterm onset of labor pains

Prolonged rupture of membrane (>18 h)

Foul smelling liquor

Histologically confirmed chorioamnionitis

Antenatal steroids in eligible## mother, N=21

Maternal fever within 7 days prior to delivery

Antibiotics within 7 days prior to delivery

Pregnancy Induced Hypertension

4 (8.9)

9 (20)

4 (8.9)

2 (4.4)

2 (4.4)

11 (52.4)

3 (6.7)

7 (15.6)

4 (8.9)

Need of resuscitation, N (%)

Positive pressure ventilation

Chest compression

Adrenaline infusion

15 (35.6)

12 (26.7)

3 (6.7)

3 (6.7)

Risk factors for hospital acquired infections; n (%)
Received antibiotics prior to isolation$; n (%) 42 (87.5)
Invasive ventilation; n (%) 21 (43.8)
Central-line use; n (%) 25 (52.1)
Use of intravenous fluid; n (%) 35 (72.9)
Total parenteral nutrition; n (%) 22 (45.8)
Clinical presentation; n (%)
Respiratory distress/failure 30 (62.5)
Hemodynamic instability 24 (50)
Lethargy/hypotonia 13 (27.1)
Bleeding manifestation 13 (27.1)
Feed intolerance 9 (18.8)
Temperature instability 6 (12.5)
Recurrent apnea 6 (12.5)
Hypoglycemia/hyperglycemia 3 (6.3)
Laboratory investigations at study hospital; n (%)
Elevated c-reactive protein (>10 mg/L) 41 (85.4)
Elevated Procalcitonin (>0.5 ng/ml) (n=41) 30 (73.2)
Thrombocytopenia (platelet count <150,000/µL) 27 (56.3)
Leucopenia (TLC <5,000/µL) 13 (27.1)
Leucocytosis (TLC >20,000/µL) 4 (8.3)
Requirement of intensive care during sepsis episode; n (%)

Respiratory support

- Non-invasive ventilation

- Invasive ventilation

45 (93.8)

14 (29.2)

31 (64.6)

Variables Number of neonates (n=45),
Number of episodes (n=48)
Blood product transfusion 18 (37.5)
Outcome of XDR sepsis
Meningitis; n (%) 20 (41.7)
Duration of hospital stay (days)# 24 (9-42)
All-cause in-hospital mortality; N (%) 21 (46.7)
Primary cause of death; N (%)

Sepsis

Prematurity*

Malformations**

16 (35.6)

2 (4.4)

3 (6.7)

Data are expressed as: N (%) represents the percentage of neonates with specified variable, and n (%) represents percentage of sepsis episodes/isolates with the specified variable.

#data expressed as median (interquartile range).

##Eligible mother was any mother delivering between gestation of 24+0 weeks to 34+0 wk.

$Received antibiotics prior to isolation’ refers to antibiotic administration to the neonate before the current sepsis episode in which an XDR organism was detected, irrespective of maternal peripartum antibiotic use.

*Prematurity’ as a cause of death was assigned only when the gestational age at birth was <26 wk, reflecting extreme prematurity as the primary underlying factor.

**Three neonates died because of underlying birth defect/malformation i.e. multicystic dysplastic kidney with bladder outlet obstruction, gastroschisis and conjoined twins (Thoracopagus twin, post-operative)

CRP, c-reactive protein; EONS, early onset neonatal sepsis; HAI, healthcare associated infection; IVF, intravenous fluid; TLC, total Leucocyte count; GNB, Gram-negative bacteria

All XDR sepsis episodes were clinically symptomatic, most commonly presenting with respiratory failure (n=30, 62.5%) and hemodynamic instability (n=24, 50%). Thrombocytopenia occurred in 56% (n=27), meningitis in 42% (n=20), and necrotising enterocolitis in 15% (n=7) of episodes. Escalation of respiratory support was required in 94% of episodes, inotropes in 48%, and blood product transfusion in 38%. In-hospital mortality among neonates with XDR GNB sepsis was 46.7% (Table II).

Overall, 87 neonates (7.1%) died; sepsis accounted for 67 deaths. Mortality was significantly higher in culture-positive compared with culture-negative sepsis (32.6% vs. 8.5%). Among gram-negative infections, mortality increased progressively from non-MDR (12.9%) to MDR (31.7%) and XDR sepsis (46.7%) (P=0.009) (Table III).

Table III. Sepsis categories and their attributable risk of mortality
Variables Died, N=87 Survived, N=1143

Relative risk*

(95% CI)

Attributable risk percentage**

(95% CI)

No sepsis (N=843) 20 (23) 823 (72) 1.0 -

Culture-negative sepsis

(N=246)

21 (24) 225 (20) 3.60 (1.98-6.63) 72.2 (40.5-100)

Culture-positive sepsis

(N=141)

46 (53) 95 (8.3) 13.8 (8.4-22.5) 92.7 (79.1-99.8)
Culture-positive sepsis by GNBs (N=117) 38 (44) 79 (6.9) 13.7 (8.3-22.7) 92.7 (78.5-99.3)
Culture-positive sepsis by non-MDR GNBs (N=31) 4 (10.5) 27 (34.2) 5.44 (1.98-14.96) 81.6 (1.3-22.4)
Culture-positive sepsis by MDR GNBs (excludes XDR) (N=41) 13 (34.2) 28 (35.4) 13.36 (7.16-24.94) 92.5 (15.1-43.6)
Culture-positive sepsis by XDR GNBs (N=45) 21 (55.3) 24 (30.4) 19.7 (11.5-33.5) 94.9 (81.4-100)
Culture-positive sepsis by Non-GNBs (N=24) 8 (9.2) 16 (1.4) 14.1 (6.9-28.6) 92.9 (71.4-99.9)

Data in ‘Died’ and ‘Survived’ column are denoted as N (%), where N is total number of neonates died and survived; and percentages indicate the proportion of neonates in each respective category.

*Relative and attributable risks of mortality were calculated using ‘no sepsis’ as the reference.

**The ‘attributable risk percentage’ was defined as the proportion of mortality among exposed neonates (i.e., those with a specific sepsis category) that exceeds the baseline mortality observed in neonates without sepsis, derived from the relative risk.

EONS, early-onset neonatal sepsis

Klebsiella (43.7%) and Acinetobacter (37.5%) species predominated among XDR isolates, with substantially higher CFR compared to non-MDR strains (Table IV). All XDR isolates were susceptible to polymyxins, with limited susceptibility to other agents. A unit-specific antibiogram demonstrated persistently high XDR prevalence (20–29.7%) throughout the study period (Supplementary Tables II and III).

Supplementary Table II

Supplementary Table III
Table IV. Profile of GNB isolates, resistance pattern and their case fatality rate
GNB pathogen, N=143 Non-MDR GNB, N=39 MDR GNBs (excludes XDR), N=56 XDR GNBs, N=48 CFR in non-MDR GNB isolates* CFR in MDR (excludes XDR) isolates** CFR in XDR isolates***
Klebsiella spp, n=47 8 (55) 18 (38) 21 (45) 1 (12.5) 4 (22.2) 8 (38)
Acinetobacter spp, n=31 6 (19) 7 (23) 18 (58) 1 (16.7) 3 (42.9) 11 (61)
Escherichia spp, n=16 5 (31) 5 (31) 6 (38) 1 (20) 1 (20) 1 (16.7)
Pseudomonas spp, n=14 6 (43) 8 (57) 0 (0) 1 (16.6) 3 (37.5) 0 (0)
Burkholderia spp, n=19 7 (37) 12 (63) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (8.3) 0 (0)
Enterobacter spp, n=6 2 (33) 3 (50) 1 (17) 0 (0) 1 (33.3) 0 (0)
Serratia, n=4 3 (75) 1 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Citrobacter, n=3 2 (67) 0 (0) 1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (100)
Morganella, n=2 0 (0) 2 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Chrysobacterium, n=1 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Data are denoted as N (%), where N denotes number of culture-positive sepsis episodes; and n(%) denotes percentage of resistant isolates in a particular genus of GNB.

*The denominator used for calculating the CFR in non-MDR GNB isolates was the total number of susceptible GNB isolates in that genus.

**The denominator used for calculating the CFR in MDR isolates was the total number of MDR GNB (excluding XDR) isolates

***The denominator used for calculating the CFR in XDR isolates was the total number of XDR GNB isolates

CFR, case fatality rate (defined as the proportion of neonates who died from sepsis within 21 days of onset in each sepsis category)

Discussion

This study demonstrates a high burden of antimicrobial resistance in neonatal sepsis, with Gram-negative bacterial sepsis accounting for nearly three-quarters of isolates, and one-third of these being XDR. Neonates with XDR Gram-negative sepsis had markedly higher mortality than those with MDR and non-MDR sepsis, underscoring the clinical impact of AMR in NICUs. Similar resistance patterns have been reported from multicentric surveillance studies in LMICs, including the Delhi Neonatal Infection Study (DeNIS) and the Young Infant Study (YIS), which documented AMR in 50–90% of neonatal Gram-negative isolates.8,10 Likewise, the BARNARDS study, encompassing ∼36,000 infants across Africa and South Asia, reported that ∼90% of Gram-negative isolates were MDR or XDR.23 In our cohort, ∼60% of XDR isolates were from outborn neonates, with three-fourths detected within 48 hours of admission, suggesting infection acquired prior to referral. Together with multicentric data from Indian district hospitals, these findings indicate that AMR is pervasive across neonatal care settings and not limited to tertiary centers.24 In contrast, surveillance networks from high-income countries, such as ARPEC, report considerably lower MDR rates (10–30%), highlighting the disproportionate burden of AMR in neonatal units in LMICs.11

Klebsiella and Acinetobacter species were the dominant XDR pathogens in this cohort, a pattern repeatedly observed in LMIC settings. Comparable studies from LMICs have reported XDR rates, ranging between 10-80% among Klebsiella isolates.17,18 While the XDR is less frequently reported, MDR Gram-negative bacteria consistently remain the leading cause of neonatal sepsis.8,11 The ARPEC study documented MDR in 58% of Klebsiella, 62.5% of Burkholderia, and 66.6% of Acinetobacter isolates.11 Similarly, the DENIS study found MDR in 82% of Acinetobacter, 54% of Klebsiella, 50% of Enterobacter, and 38% of Escherichia isolates.8 Comparable resistance patterns, with MDR exceeding 70% in Klebsiella and Acinetobacter, have also been reported from South Asia.13 These organisms pose therapeutic challenges due to resistance to extended-spectrum cephalosporins and carbapenems, leaving few effective treatment options.

Despite timely diagnosis and appropriate supportive care, nearly half of the neonates with XDR Gram-negative sepsis in this study did not survive. While XDR sepsis was significantly associated with mortality, this relationship should not be interpreted as causal. Mortality in MDR and XDR sepsis is likely multifactorial, reflecting a complex interplay of pathogen virulence, baseline illness severity (particularly among outborn neonates), delayed initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy, and host vulnerability. In our unit, second-line empiric therapy includes vancomycin and meropenem; however, the high prevalence of carbapenem resistance among XDR isolates necessitated escalation to reserve agents such as colistin or polymyxins only after susceptibility results became available, typically after 48–72 h. This delay likely contributed to the higher mortality observed. Similar observations have been reported by ARPEC, which documented a fourfold higher mortality (34% vs. 8%) in MDR Gram-negative infections.11 In contrast, DeNIS reported comparable mortality between MDR and non-MDR isolates (both ∼50%), possibly reflecting the high virulence of some susceptible pathogens in that cohort, though culture-positive sepsis with resistant isolates had five-fold higher odds of mortality compared to culture-negative sepsis.8

Currently, ample literature highlights the emergence of MDR strains and resistance to WHO-recommended first-line antibiotics.5,25,26 Yet, data on XDR organisms in neonates remain limited, with most reports from adult ICUs showing prevalence rates between 3.5% and 15%.17,27 The high endemicity of MDR and XDR gram-negative infections in LMICs is driven by gaps in antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship, indiscriminate antibiotic use, reliance on invasive devices, and suboptimal infection control practices.7,28-30 Additional contributors include indiscriminate antibiotic use in healthcare and agriculture, reinforcing the need for a coordinated ‘One Health’approach.31,32 With increasing resistance to first-line and reserve antibiotics and stagnation in antibiotic development, preserving the effectiveness of existing agents through integrated stewardship strategies is imperative.3,33

This study has several strengths. It is among the first to specifically focus on XDR GNB sepsis in neonates, an underreported yet critical public health concern. The use of automated blood culture systems, standardised resistance definitions, and follow-up until discharge enabled robust assessment of disease burden and outcomes. In addition, the development of a unit-specific cumulative antibiogram enhances the translational relevance of the findings for local empiric therapy and stewardship strategies.

This study has several limitations. The single-centre design in a tertiary NICU may limit generalisability; however, the predominance of outborn referrals partially mitigates this concern. The retrospective design resulted in incomplete data on prior antibiotic exposure, illness severity, and maternal or environmental factors, introducing potential ascertainment bias. Although mortality was higher in XDR sepsis, lack of data on time to appropriate therapy and the small number of outcome events precluded robust multivariable adjustment for key prognostic factors, limiting causal inference. Mortality, assessed as all-cause within 28 days, may overestimate sepsis-attributable deaths. The small number of XDR cases limited pathogen-specific analyses and the precision of estimates. Finally, the absence of data on healthcare-associated infections, molecular resistance mechanisms, and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes constrains interpretation, highlighting the need for prospective, multicentric studies incorporating molecular diagnostics.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates a high and sustained burden of XDR Gram-negative bacterial sepsis in neonates, associated with increased mortality. These findings emphasise the need for strengthened surveillance, infection prevention strategies, and optimised antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship to mitigate the impact of AMR in neonatal care.

Author contributions

BY: Conceptualised and designed the study, recruited participants, compiled the data, manuscript writing; NG: Conceptualised and planned the study, supervised the data collection, analysed and interpreted the data, manuscript writing; RS: Conceptualisation, study design, definition of intellectual content, statistical analysis, manuscript writing; VT: Conceptualisation, data acquisition, manuscript writing; AS: Conceptualisation, study design, definition of intellectual content, data acquisition, manuscript writing; VLN: Study design, definition of intellectual content, experimental studies, data acquisition, manuscript writing; AKS: conceptualisation, study design, definition of intellectual content, literature search, clinical studies, experimental studies, data acquisition, statistical analysis, manuscript writing. All authors have read and approved the final printed version of the manuscript.

Financial support and sponsorship

None.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology for manuscript preparation

The authors confirm that there was no use of AI-assisted technology for assisting in the writing of the manuscript and no images were manipulated using AI.

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2019. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/antimicrobial-resistance/media/pdfs/2019-ar-threats-report-508.pdf, accessed on November 26, 2025
  2. . Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: A systematic analysis. Lancet.. 2022;399:629-55.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  3. . Antimicrobial resistance: Implications and costs. Infect Drug Resist.. 2019;12:3903-10.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  4. World Bank Group. Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). Available from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/health/brief/antimicrobial-resistance-amr, accessed on November 26, 2025.
  5. World Health Organisation. Antimicrobial resistance. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance, accessed on November 21, 2023.
  6. , , , , , , et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: Interim standard definitions. Clin Microbiol Infect.. 2012;18:268-81.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , , . Antimicrobial resistance in low- and middle-income countries: Current status and future directions. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther.. 2022;20:147-60.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. . Characterisation and antimicrobial resistance of sepsis pathogens in neonates born in tertiary care centres in Delhi, India: A cohort study. Lancet Glob Health.. 2016;4:e752-60.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , et al. Characterization of antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative bacteria causing neonatal sepsis. Nat Microbiol.. 2021;6:512-23.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , , et al. Etiology of bacteremia in young infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J.. 2015;34:e1-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , . Antibiotic resistance and prescribing in European children. J Antimicrob Chemother.. 2016;71:1106-17.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , , , , et al. Global neonatal sepsis observational cohort (NeoOBS) PLoS Med.. 2023;20:e1004179.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , , , . Neonatal sepsis in South Asia. BMJ.. 2019;364:k5314.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , , , et al. Emergence of XDR hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother.. 2018;73:2039-46.
    [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. , , . Global spread of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Emerg Infect. 2011;17:1791-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , , , , et al. Polymyxin-resistant hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae. BMC Microbiol.. 2023;23:64.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  17. , , . Multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant bacteria. J Pathog.. 2016;2016:4065603.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , . XDR Klebsiella pneumoniae in neonatal sepsis. Front Microbiol.. 2020;11:1375.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  19. , , , , , , et al. Antibiotic resistance in neonatal sepsis. Egypt J Med Microbiol.. 2023;32:31-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , , , , et al. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens in HAIs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.. 2013;34:1-14.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , , , , et al. BacT/Alert automated detection system. J Clin Microbiol.. 1990;28:1608-12.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. . Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. CLSI document M100 (35th ed). Wayne (PA): CLSI; .
  23. , , , , , , et al. BARNARDS study. Lancet Infect Dis.. 2021;21:1677-88.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  24. , , , , , , et al. DH study collaborators. MDR sepsis in SNCUs. Lancet Glob Health.. 2025;13:e870-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  25. , . Burden of neonatal sepsis in low-resource settings. Clin Infect Dis.. 2021;73:281-2.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. , , , , , , et al. Empiric antibiotic coverage gaps. Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia.. 2023;22:100291.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  27. , , , , , , et al. MDR and XDR Enterobacteriaceae outcomes. Infect Drug Resist.. 2020;13:4653-62.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  28. , , , , , , et al. Antimicrobial resistance in LMICs. J Infect Public Health.. 2022;15:172-81.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. , , , . AMR transmission in developing countries. Nat Microbiol.. 2022;7:757-65.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  30. World Health Organisation. Diagnostic stewardship: a guide to implementation in antimicrobial resistance surveillance sites. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-DGO-AMR-2016.3, accessed November 26 2025.
  31. , , , , , , et al. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.. 2015;112:564954.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. World Health Organisation. One health. 2025 Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health, accessed on November 26, 2025
  33. , , , , , , et al. Access to effective antimicrobials: A worldwide challenge. Lancet.. 2016;387:16875.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Show Sections
Scroll to Top