4.7 Article

Fluoroquinolone resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates:: associated genetic mutations and relationship to antimicrobial exposure

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 59, 期 5, 页码 860-865

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkm061

关键词

M. tuberculosis; TB; multidrug resistance; gyrA; gyrB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We assessed the fluoroquinolone (FQ) susceptibility of clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in an endemic area. The genetic mutations responsible for FQ resistance were also evaluated. Methods: A total of 420 M. tuberculosis isolates during January 2004 to December 2005 were randomly selected. Data on the clinical characteristics of the patients were obtained from medical records. The MiCs of ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and moxifloxacin were determined. Spoligotyping and sequencing of the gyrA and gyrB genes were performed for all isolates resistant to any tested FQ. Results: Of the 420 isolates, 52 (12.4%), 26 (6.2%), 26 (6.2%) and 30 (7.1%) were resistant to isonlazid, rifampicin, ethambutol and streptomycin, respectively. Multidrug resistance was found in 5.0% of isolates. For all tested FQs, the susceptibility rate was higher than 97%. Resistance to any first-line drug and isolation from a patient with prior anti-tuberculous treatment were correlated with FQ resistance. Multidrug resistance had the strongest correlation with FQ resistance (19% of isolates). Neither the previous use of FQs nor the duration of FQ exposure was correlated with the FQ susceptibility. Of the 14 FO-resistant isolates, five (35.7%) had gyrA mutations (four D94G and one A9011) and another one (7.1%) had a gyrB mutation (N538D). Conclusions: This study found FQ resistance in 3.3% of all clinical isolates of M. tuberculosis. FQ resistance was correlated with first-line drug resistance and prior anti-tuberculous treatment, suggesting the need for routine FQ susceptibility testing in patients with these characteristics.

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