4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Community-based surveillance in the United States of macrolide-resistant pediatric pharyngeal group a streptococci during 3 respiratory disease seasons

Journal

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 39, Issue 12, Pages 1794-1801

Publisher

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/426025

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [5 R37 AI 1010085-39S] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. In 2001, a total of 48% of pharyngeal group A streptococci (GAS) from Pittsburgh children were macrolide resistant. We assessed macrolide resistance, resistance genes, and emm types among GAS in the United States. Methods. In prospective, multicenter, community-based surveillance of pharyngeal GAS recovered from children 3-18 years old during 3 respiratory seasons (the 2000-2001 season, the 2001-2002 season, and the 2002 2003 season), GAS were tested for macrolide resistance and underwent emm gene sequencing. Macrolide-resistant GAS were tested for resistance to clindamycin, and resistance genes were determined. Results. Erythromycin resistance was observed in 4.4% of isolates from the 2000-2001 season, 4.3% from the 2001-2002 season, and 3.8% from the 2002-2003 season (P = .80). Clindamycin resistance was found in 1.04% of isolates; annual rates of clindamycin resistance were stable (P = .75). The predominant resistance genotype each year was mef A (65%-76.9%; overall, 70.3%). Resistant isolates included strains representing 8-11 different emm types each year. Heterogeneity of emm subtypes, resistance genes, and clindamycin resistance was evident among resistant isolates within some emm types. Geographic variability in resistance rates was present each year. Conclusions. The macrolide resistance rate among pharyngeal GAS was <5% and was stable over the 3 seasons. However, rates varied among sites each year. There was no evidence of spread of a specific resistant clone, increasing clindamycin resistance, or escalation in median erythromycin MICs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available