| Literature DB >> 18620572 |
Manimuthu Mani Sankar1, Krishnamoorthy Gopinath, Roopak Singla, Sarman Singh.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-tubercular mycobacteria (NTM) has not been given due attention till the recent epidemic of HIV. This has led to increasing interest of health care workers in their biology, epidemiology and drug resistance. However, timely detection and drug susceptibility profiling of NTM isolates are always difficult in resource poor settings like India. Furthermore, no standardized methodology or guidelines are available to reproduce the results with clinical concordance.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18620572 PMCID: PMC2483991 DOI: 10.1186/1476-0711-7-15
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob ISSN: 1476-0711 Impact factor: 3.944
Mean MICs of drugs (μg/mL) against clinical isolates of Non-tubercular mycobacterial isolates
| 0.6 | 1.69 | 0.5 | 0.96 | 57.7 | 66.63 | 0.27 | 0.48 | 0.6 | 0.16 | 158.5 | 215.9 | 22.2 | 32.53 | |
| 0.22 | - | 0.22 | - | 138.3 | - | 0.13 | - | 0.66 | - | 1.37 | - | 0.16 | - | |
| 3.98 | 10.49 | 1.03 | 2.58 | 19.98 | 52.17 | 0.13 | - | 0.66 | - | 1.95 | 1.55 | 0.23 | 0.18 | |
| 0.05 | - | 0.29 | 0.63 | 19.98 | 52.17 | 0.13 | - | 0.66 | - | 36.8 | 93.97 | 12.02 | 31.38 | |
| 0.54 | - | 0.54 | - | 0.27 | - | 0.13 | - | 0.66 | - | 1.37 | - | 0.16 | - | |
| 0.21 | - | 0.05 | - | 0.27 | - | 0.13 | - | 0.66 | - | 1.37 | - | 0.32 | - | |
| 0.86 | - | 27.6 | - | 138.3 | - | 0.53 | - | 2.06 | - | 43.75 | - | 1.3 | - | |
| 1.72 | - | 0.05 | - | 138.3 | - | 0.13 | - | 0.66 | - | 1.37 | - | 0.16 | - | |
| 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 49.07 | 77.38 | 0.77 | 1.11 | 0.66 | - | 59.24 | 100.24 | 27.84 | 47.94 | |
| 0.21 | - | 0.05 | - | 0.27 | - | 0.13 | - | 0.66 | - | 1.37 | - | 0.32 | - | |
| 0.47 | 0.83 | 0.92 | 1.68 | 69.28 | 79.69 | 4.26 | 8.16 | 0.66 | - | 1.37 | - | 0.16 | - | |
| 0.11 | 0.093 | 0.54 | - | 46.28 | 79.69 | 0.13 | - | 0.66 | - | 30.07 | 49.72 | 7.04 | 11.91 | |
| 1.81 | 2.57 | 1.87 | 2.54 | 20.37 | 52.01 | 0.26 | 0.33 | 0.6 | 0.14 | 1.37 | - | 12.02 | 31.38 | |
| 0.05 | - | 0.05 | - | 0.27 | - | 0.13 | - | 0.66 | - | 1.37 | - | 0.16 | - | |
STR: Streptomycin, RIF: Rifampicin, ETH: Ethambutol, CIP: Ciprofloxacin, OFL: Ofloxacin, ATH: Azithromycin, CLA: Clarithromycin, M: Mean, SD: Standard deviation.
Figure 1Diagrammatic illustration of tetrazolium microplate assay.
Comparison of TEMA and APM for antimycobacterial susceptibility testing of Non-tubercular mycobacterial isolates
| 43 | 1 | 45 | 0 | 36 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 53 | 0 | 43 | 0 | 45 | 0 | |
| 1 | 10 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 9 | |
| 44 | 11 | 46 | 9 | 36 | 19 | 50 | 5 | 54 | 1 | 44 | 11 | 46 | 9 | |
| (80%) | (20%) | (83.6%) | (16.4%) | (65.5%) | (34.5%) | (91%) | (9%) | (98.2%) | (1.8%) | (80%) | (20%) | (83.6%) | (16.4%) | |
| 96.4% | 98% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 98% | 98% | ||||||||
TEMA: Tetrazolium Microplate Assay, STR: Streptomycin, RIF: Rifampicin, ETH: Ethambutol, CIP: Ciprofloxacin, OFL: Ofloxacin, ATH: Azithromycin, CLA: Clarithromycin, S: Sensitive, R: Resistant.
Figure 2Drug resistance patterns of NTM.
Figure 3Drug resistance patterns in individual species of NTM against Streptomycin.
Figure 4Drug resistance patterns in individual species of NTM against Rifampicin.
Figure 5Drug resistance patterns in individual species of NTM against Ethambutol.
Figure 6Drug resistance patterns in individual species of NTM against Ciprofloxacin.
Figure 7Drug resistance patterns in individual species of NTM against Ofloxacin.
Figure 8Drug resistance patterns in individual species of NTM against Azithromycin.
Figure 9Drug resistance patterns in individual species of NTM against Clarithromycin.