4.7 Article

Deciphering an outbreak of drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 67-72

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.1.67-72.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There have been ample warnings that multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) will continue to emerge if countries do not strengthen their control of TB. In low-incidence European countries, however, these warnings have been substantiated mainly by outbreaks in association with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients. The aim of this study was to investigate an outbreak of infection with MDR and drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis that was diagnosed among 20 HIV-negative patients living in Norway. Of these, 19 were immigrants from East Africa and one was an ethnic Norwegian. We wanted to find out if transmission had taken place in Norway or abroad and to identify the genetic basis of drug resistance. The strains were analyzed by IS6110 restriction fragment length polymorphism, antibiotic susceptibility tests, spoligotyping, reverse hybridization to regions of the rpoB gene, and sequencing of the katG gene. Epidemiological links between the patients were mapped, and the strains were compared to those isolated in 36 other countries and regions. All strains were resistant to isoniazid and carried Ala234Gly, Ser315Thr, and Arg463Leu substitutions in the katG gene. Eleven strains were MDR and carried a Ser531Leu substitution in the rpoB gene. MDR was acquired in the index patient after arrival in Norway. Links were found among 14 patients. The strain was imported from Somalia but acquired MDR and was transmitted in Norway. This demonstrated that MDR strains are not necessarily imported from high-incidence countries and can be highly communicable. The outbreak underscores a deficiency in the TB control measures employed in many countries and challenges the adequacy of the policy of screening immigrants for TB only on arrival.

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