4.7 Article

Emergence of high-level azithromycin resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae in England and Wales

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 64, 期 2, 页码 353-358

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkp188

关键词

disc diffusion; Etest; NG-MAST

资金

  1. Department of Health (London)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the origin of high-level azithromycin resistance that emerged in isolates of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in England and Wales in 2007, and to establish methods for identifying high-level azithromycin resistance. The Gonococcal Resistance to Antimicrobials Surveillance Programme (GRASP) data from 2001-07 were examined for emerging trends in azithromycin susceptibility. Further to the identification of six high-level azithromycin-resistant isolates in GRASP 2007, an additional 102 isolates were selected on the basis of azithromycin susceptibility and geographic origin from the GRASP 2006 and 2007 collections. Susceptibility testing by Etest and disc diffusion was performed on all 108 isolates and 75 of these were typed by N. gonorrhoeae multiantigen sequence typing. A slight drift towards higher MICs of azithromycin was observed in the gonococcal population since 2001. Of greater concern was the first example of a shift to high-level resistance observed in six isolates in 2007. All six isolates were sequence type 649, which was not observed in any of the lower-level azithromycin-resistant isolates from 2007 or in any isolates tested from the same geographical locations. Contact tracing data for one patient suggested a link with Scotland. Disc diffusion testing of all 108 isolates showed that azithromycin, but not erythromycin, discs can differentiate between low-level and high-level resistance. High-level azithromycin resistance has emerged in England and Wales. Contact tracing and typing data suggest this may have originated from Scotland. Surveillance of azithromycin resistance will be key in controlling its further dissemination.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据