| Literature DB >> 21589863 |
Yi Hu1, Barun Mathema, Weili Jiang, Barry Kreiswirth, Weibing Wang, Biao Xu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Transmission patterns of drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) may be influenced by differences in socio-demographics, local tuberculosis (TB) endemicity and efficaciousness of TB control programs. This study aimed to investigate the impact of DOTS on the transmission of drug-resistant TB in eastern rural China.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21589863 PMCID: PMC3093389 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019548
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic and clinic characteristics of patients and drug-resistant patterns at diagnosis in Deqing and Guanyun.
| Variables | Deqing ( | Guanyun ( | χ2 |
| ||
| No. | % | No. | % | |||
| Male (sex) | 109 | 66.5 | 128 | 68.4 | 0.157 | 0.69 |
| Age (mean±SD) | 48.44±18.96 | 48.20±19.76 | 0.045 | 0.83 | ||
| Cavity | 22 | 13.4 | 33 | 17.6 | 1.184 | 0.28 |
| Smear positive | 110 | 67.1 | 129 | 69.0 | 0.147 | 0.70 |
| BMI value (mean±SD) | 18.33±2.62 | 18.90±3.00 | 3.579 | 0.06 | ||
| Previously treated | 42 | 25.6 | 51 | 27.3 | 0.124 | 0.73 |
| Drug-resistant pattern at diagnosis | ||||||
| Pan-drug sensitive | 63 | 38.4 | 65 | 34.8 | 4.089 | 0.13 |
| MDR-TB | 18 | 11.0 | 35 | 18.7 | ||
| Other drug-resistance | 83 | 50.6 | 87 | 46.5 | ||
aF value for ANOVA test.
Figure 1The clustering patterns of IS6110 RFLP and their distribution in counties and 1st-line drug susceptibilities groups.
The isolates in the counties represented the clustered drug-resistant MTB with the identical IS6110 RFLP patterns.
Univariate and multivariate analysis on the factors influencing the clustering proportion of drug-resistant TB (n = 223).
| Variable | Deqing county | Guanyun county | ||||||||||
| Total | Clustered | cOR | aOR |
| 95%CI | Total | Clustered | cOR | aOR |
| 95%CI | |
| BMI | ||||||||||||
| >18.5 | 51 | 10 (19.6) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 58 | 19(32.8) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| ≤18.5 | 50 | 16 (32.0) | 1.93 | 1.92 | 0.17 | 0.760–4.820 | 64 | 28(43.8) | 1.60 | 1.77 | 0.15 | 0.818–3.840 |
| TB contact | ||||||||||||
| No | 88 | 22 (25.0) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 92 | 34(37.0) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Yes | 13 | 4 (30.8) | 1.33 | 1.38 | 0.63 | 0.382–4.963 | 30 | 13(43.3) | 1.30 | 1.37 | 0.48 | 0.579–3.235 |
| Sputum smear test | ||||||||||||
| negative | 28 | 6 (21.4) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 38 | 8 (21.1) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.02 | |||
| positive | 73 | 20(27.4) | 1.38 | 1.38 | 0.54 | 0.488–3.910 | 84 | 39(46.4) | 3.25 | 2.98 | 0.01 | 1.191–7.441 |
| Cavity | ||||||||||||
| No | 86 | 18(20.9) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 92 | 30(32.6) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Yes | 15 | 8 (53.3) | 4.32 | 4.50 | 0.01 | 1.421–14.26 | 30 | 17(56.7) | 2.70 | 2.85 | 0.02 | 1.195–6.782 |
| Treatment history | ||||||||||||
| New | 68 | 17(25.0) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 79 | 21(26.6) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Prior treated | 33 | 9 (27.3) | 1.13 | 1.14 | 0.78 | 0.443–2.945 | 43 | 26(60.5) | 4.22 | 5.66 | 0.01 | 2.332–13.73 |
| Strain family | ||||||||||||
| Non-Beijing | 27 | 2 (7.4) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 33 | 6(18.2) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Beijing genotype | 74 | 24(32.4) | 6.00 | 6.18 | 0.02 | 1.332–28.64 | 89 | 41(46.1) | 3.84 | 3.75 | 0.01 | 1.396–10.06 |
OR and 95% CI was adjusted for age and sex in the binary logistics regression model.
p<0.05.
Clustering proportion between the MTB isolates with different drug-resistant pattern and genetic mutation (n = 223).
| No.of isolates | crude | Adjusted OR |
| 95%CI | |||
| Total | Clustered(%) | OR | |||||
|
| |||||||
| Sensitive | 128 | 39(30.5) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
| INH | 131 | 63(48.1) | 2.05 | 2.01 | 0.008 | 1.204–3.369 | |
| RIF | 65 | 35(53.8) | 2.66 | 2.62 | 0.003 | 1.382–4.980 | |
| STR | 115 | 26(22.6) | 0.67 | 0.68 | 0.19 | 0.376–1.215 | |
| EMB | 42 | 12(28.6) | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.79 | 0.405–1.988 | |
| MDR-TB | 53 | 34(64.2) | 4.08 | 3.87 | 0.0001 | 1.924–7.764 | |
| Other combinations | 170 | 39(22.9) | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.15 | 0.634–1.070 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| |||||||
|
| 50 | 9 (18.0) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
|
| 7 | 0 (0) | - | - | - | - | |
|
| 74 | 54(73.0) | 12.3 | 12.7 | 0.0001 | 6.357–14.80 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 5 | 1(20.0) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
|
| 23 | 10 (43.5) | 4.22 | 4.88 | 0.12 | 0.597–19.298 | |
|
| 37 | 24 (64.9) | 8.71 | 8.50 | 0.08 | 0.771–93.65 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 37 | 9 (24.3) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
|
| 18 | 2 (11.1) | 0.33 | 0.55 | 0.49 | 0.099–3.035 | |
|
| 60 | 15(25.0) | 1.04 | 1.41 | 0.51 | 0.511–3.865 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 21 | 5(23.8) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
|
| 8 | 2(25.0) | 1.27 | 1.19 | 0.87 | 0.164–8.584 | |
|
| 13 | 5(38.5) | 1.80 | 1.59 | 0.14 | 0.673–9.100 | |
Note: INH,isoniazid; RIF,rifampicin; STR, streptomycin; EMB, ethambutol.
cOR: crude odds ratio were calculated by comparing the clustering proportion between drug- resistant MTB isolate and drug-susceptible isolate in binary logistic regression model.
aOR: adjusted odds ratio and 95%CI were calculated by comparing the clustering proportion between drug-resistant TB isolate and drug-susceptible isolate, adjusted by age, sex, and counties of the subjects in a binary logistic regression model.
p<0.05.
Figure 2The geographic distribution of the patients with the clustered MTB isolates in Deqing(upper) and Guanyun(lower).
Note: cottage represented the township; vile represented the central area of the counties; No. marked the IS6110 RFLP clusters; the underlined No. represented the drug-susceptible MTB isolates; Eclipse marked the clustered isolates distributed in the same township; the dotted line connected the clustered isolate without geographic correlation.