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

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 1794-1801

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/426025

关键词

-

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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