The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2014
Erm(41)-dependent inducible resistance to azithromycin and clarithromycin in clinical isolates of Mycobacterium abscessus.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Maurer Florian P, Castelberg Claudio, Quiblier Chantal, Böttger Erik C, Somoskövi Akos
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The ribosomal methylase Erm(41) confers inducible resistance to macrolides in Mycobacterium abscessus. The aim of this work was to systematically study and compare drug susceptibility to clarithromycin and azithromycin in M. abscessus and Mycobacterium chelonae clinical isolates with a particular focus on inducible drug resistance.
METHODS: Clinical isolates of M. abscessus subsp. abscessus (n = 21), M. abscessus subsp. bolletii (n = 16), M. abscessus subsp. massiliense (n = 10) and M. chelonae (n = 22) were characterized regarding their erm(41) and rrl genotypes and subjected to drug susceptibility testing (DST) for clarithromycin and azithromycin. Microdilution DST was performed in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (pH 7.4) with readings at days 3, 7 and 12 and with pre-incubation at subinhibitory macrolide concentrations for erm(41) induction. In addition, the influence of variations in pH and growth medium on DST results was examined.
RESULTS: MICs of azithromycin were consistently higher than those of clarithromycin. In strains with an inducible erm(41) gene, high median MICs of ≥256 mg/L on day 12 were observed for both clarithromycin and azithromycin. Inducible resistance was at least as pronounced for azithromycin as for clarithromycin.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support the suggestion of a preferential use of azithromycin over clarithromycin in order to limit inducible macrolide resistance. Both compounds provoked a comparable resistance phenotype in M. abscessus. Caution is needed when using either azithromycin or clarithromycin for treatment of M. abscessus infections.
METHODS: Clinical isolates of M. abscessus subsp. abscessus (n = 21), M. abscessus subsp. bolletii (n = 16), M. abscessus subsp. massiliense (n = 10) and M. chelonae (n = 22) were characterized regarding their erm(41) and rrl genotypes and subjected to drug susceptibility testing (DST) for clarithromycin and azithromycin. Microdilution DST was performed in cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (pH 7.4) with readings at days 3, 7 and 12 and with pre-incubation at subinhibitory macrolide concentrations for erm(41) induction. In addition, the influence of variations in pH and growth medium on DST results was examined.
RESULTS: MICs of azithromycin were consistently higher than those of clarithromycin. In strains with an inducible erm(41) gene, high median MICs of ≥256 mg/L on day 12 were observed for both clarithromycin and azithromycin. Inducible resistance was at least as pronounced for azithromycin as for clarithromycin.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support the suggestion of a preferential use of azithromycin over clarithromycin in order to limit inducible macrolide resistance. Both compounds provoked a comparable resistance phenotype in M. abscessus. Caution is needed when using either azithromycin or clarithromycin for treatment of M. abscessus infections.