4.4 Article

Increasing metronidazole and rifampicin resistance of Helicobacter pylori isolates obtained from children and adolescents between 2002 and 2015 in southwest Germany

期刊

HELICOBACTER
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hel.12327

关键词

adolescents; antimicrobial resistance; children; Helicobacter pylori; southwest Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Increasing antibiotic resistance has been reported for Helicobacter pylori, but data on the prevalence of antibiotic resistance of H. pylori in pediatric patients and the development of resistance over time are sparse. Methods: Data for 610 H. pylori isolates obtained between 2002 and 2015 from gastric biopsies of 582 (mainly treatment-naive) pediatric patients from southwest Germany were analyzed retrospectively regarding the antibiotic susceptibility determined by Etest and patients' characteristics. Results: Overall resistance to metronidazole, clarithromycin, and rifampicin was 28.7%, 23.2%, and 13.3%, respectively, while resistance to amoxicillin was rare (0.8%). Simultaneous resistance to metronidazole and clarithromycin was observed for 7.7% of the isolates, and 2.3% were resistant to metronidazole, clarithromycin, and rifampicin. Differences between primary vs secondary resistance existed for metronidazole (24.7% vs 38.8%, P=.01) and clarithromycin (17.2% vs 54.1%, P=.0001). From 2002-2008 to 2009-2015, resistance to metronidazole increased from 20.8% to 34.4% (P=.003) and to rifampicin from 3.9% to 18.8% (P=.0001); this was not associated with increased numbers of patients previously treated for H. pylori infection in the second study period. In contrast, resistance to clarithromycin did not change significantly over time. Resistance was not associated with age, sex, or family origin in Europe. Conclusions: The considerable antibiotic resistance of H. pylori isolates argues for standard antibiotic susceptibility testing of H. pylori in pediatric patients prior to the initiation of antibiotic therapy.

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

4.4
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