4.7 Article

Trends in Secondary Antibiotic Resistance of Helicobacter pylori from 2007 to 2014: Has the Tide Turned?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 53, 期 2, 页码 522-527

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.03001-14

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current guidelines recommend culture and antibiotic susceptibility testing of Helicobacter pylori following two failed eradication attempts. Where testing is unavailable, epidemiological data for secondary H. pylori resistance are essential to allow for the rational use of antibiotics. The aim of this study was to describe the temporal changes in antibiotic resistance among adults previously treated for H. pylori infections and to identify predictors of resistance. Between 2007 and 2014, consecutive patients undergoing gastroscopy with H. pylori culture and susceptibility testing at our institution following at least two treatment failures were retrospectively identified. Antibiotic susceptibilities were recorded and linked to the demographic data. A total of 1,042 patients were identified, including 739 (70.9%) males, aged 39.3 +/- 18.9 years. Resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin was found in 57.2%, 64.4%, and 5.1% of isolates, respectively. Dual resistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole was seen in 39.9%. Over the study period, clarithromycin resistance increased annually in a linear manner (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.14; P < 0.01), levofloxacin resistance decreased annually (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92; P < 0.01), and metronidazole resistance was nonlinear. Age was an independent predictor of resistance to all antibiotics. Time elapsed predicted resistance for clarithromycin and levofloxacin and dual resistance for clarithromycin-metronidazole. Secondary resistance of H. pylori to clarithromycin and metronidazole remains high. The low secondary resistance to levofloxacin makes it an attractive treatment option in our region for patients following two failed eradication attempts.

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