The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2016
Molecular analysis of Streptococcus pyogenes macrolide resistance of paediatric isolates during a 7 year period (2007-13).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Michos Athanasios, Koutouzi Foteini I, Tsakris Athanasios, Chatzichristou Panagiota, Koutouzis Emmanouil I, Daikos George L, Stathi Angeliki, Syriopoulou Vassiliki P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The molecular characterization of paediatric group A Streptococcus (GAS) isolates regarding macrolide resistance and relevant emm types in Athens, Greece.
METHODS: Pharyngeal and non-pharyngeal GAS isolates were collected during a 7 year period (2007-13) and examined for antibiotic susceptibility, macrolide resistance genes [mef(A), erm(A) and erm(B)] and relevant emm types.
RESULTS: Overall, 20.4% (270/1324) of GAS isolates were resistant to macrolides. The macrolide resistance rate varied during the study period with a maximum rate observed in 2008 (29.57%) and a minimum rate observed in 2013 (10.95%) (P value for trend = 0.007). During the same period, consumption of macrolides was gradually reduced by 56.6%. No difference was observed in macrolide resistance between pharyngeal and non-pharyngeal isolates (P = 0.7). Among macrolide-resistant isolates, mef(A) was detected in 87 (32.2%), erm(A) in 136 (50.4%), erm(B) in 44 (16.3%) and both mef(A) and erm(A) in 3 (1.1%) isolates. The most prevalent emm types among macrolide-resistant isolates were emm77 (31.5%), emm4 (18.1%) and emm12 (10.7%). Ten emm types (77, 4, 12, 28, 1, 22, 11, 2, 44 and 89) accounted for 90.3% of macrolide-resistant isolates. emm types 4, 22, 44 and 77 were more prevalent in macrolide-resistant compared with macrolide-susceptible isolates, whereas emm types 1, 3, 5, 6, 75 and 89 were more prevalent in macrolide-susceptible compared with macrolide-resistant isolates.
CONCLUSIONS: GAS macrolide resistance remained significant in our area during the study period. A substantial decline in the resistance rate was observed in the last year of the study, which may be related to reduced consumption of macrolides.
METHODS: Pharyngeal and non-pharyngeal GAS isolates were collected during a 7 year period (2007-13) and examined for antibiotic susceptibility, macrolide resistance genes [mef(A), erm(A) and erm(B)] and relevant emm types.
RESULTS: Overall, 20.4% (270/1324) of GAS isolates were resistant to macrolides. The macrolide resistance rate varied during the study period with a maximum rate observed in 2008 (29.57%) and a minimum rate observed in 2013 (10.95%) (P value for trend = 0.007). During the same period, consumption of macrolides was gradually reduced by 56.6%. No difference was observed in macrolide resistance between pharyngeal and non-pharyngeal isolates (P = 0.7). Among macrolide-resistant isolates, mef(A) was detected in 87 (32.2%), erm(A) in 136 (50.4%), erm(B) in 44 (16.3%) and both mef(A) and erm(A) in 3 (1.1%) isolates. The most prevalent emm types among macrolide-resistant isolates were emm77 (31.5%), emm4 (18.1%) and emm12 (10.7%). Ten emm types (77, 4, 12, 28, 1, 22, 11, 2, 44 and 89) accounted for 90.3% of macrolide-resistant isolates. emm types 4, 22, 44 and 77 were more prevalent in macrolide-resistant compared with macrolide-susceptible isolates, whereas emm types 1, 3, 5, 6, 75 and 89 were more prevalent in macrolide-susceptible compared with macrolide-resistant isolates.
CONCLUSIONS: GAS macrolide resistance remained significant in our area during the study period. A substantial decline in the resistance rate was observed in the last year of the study, which may be related to reduced consumption of macrolides.