| Literature DB >> 27756241 |
Glennah Kerubo1,2, Evans Amukoye3, Stefan Niemann4,5, Samuel Kariuki6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anti-tuberculosis drug resistance is an emerging health problem in Kenya and especially in slums. Slum environments create a conducive environment for the spread of tuberculosis (TB) due to high population density and lack of basic amenities such as decent housing, access to clean water, lack of drainage and basic sanitation. Furthermore, ineffective health services in crowded and poorer populations, poor patient compliance, a large pool of untreated cases, delayed diagnosis and inappropriate treatment regimens are likely to favour selection and spread of drug resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) strains in such settings, however, precise data on this problem are only sparsely available. To address this question, this study aimed at determining drug resistance patterns of Mtb strains obtained from pulmonary TB patients who sought health care in randomly selected informal settings.Entities:
Keywords: Drug resistance; Informal settlements; Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27756241 PMCID: PMC5070164 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-016-1920-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1Map showing slums in Nairobi. Source: Source: http://sdinet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Nairobi_slum_inventory_jan_09.pdf. Nairobi province: distribution of infomal settlements
Socio-demographic characteristics of participants
| Characteristic | Male ( | Female ( | Total ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| 18–23 | 9 (7.1 %) | 12 (21.1 %) | 21 (11.4 %) |
| 24–29 | 39 (30.7 %) | 17 (29.8 %) | 56 (30.4 %) |
| 30–35 | 32 (25.2 %) | 17 (29.8 %) | 49 (26.6 %) |
| 36–41 | 30 (23.6 %) | 9 (15.8 %) | 39 (21.2 %) |
| 42–47 | 11 (8.7 %) | 2 (3.5 %) | 13 (7.1 % |
| 48+ | 6 (4.7 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 6 (3.3 %) |
| Marital status | |||
| Married | 81 (63.8 %) | 29 (50.9 %) | 110 (59.8 %) |
| Single | 44 (34.6 %) | 26 (45.6 %) | 70 (38.0 %) |
| Divorced | 2 (1.6 %) | 2 (3.5 %) | 4 (2.2 %) |
| Education | |||
| Never | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (1.8 %) | 1 (0.5 %) |
| Primary | 48 (37.8 %) | 25 (43.9 %) | 73 (39.7 %) |
| Secondary | 59 (46.5 %) | 28 (49.1 %) | 87 (47.3 %) |
| College | 20 (15.7 %) | 3 (5.3 %) | 23 (12.5 %) |
| House type | |||
| Homeless | 2 (1.6 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 2 (1.1 %) |
| Hut | 17 (13.4 %) | 11 (19.3 %) | 28 (15.2 %) |
| Iron sheet | 39 (30.7 %) | 18 (31.6 %) | 57 (31.0 %) |
| Stonewall | 69 (54.3 %) | 28 (49.1 %) | 97 (52.7 %) |
| Source of Income | |||
| Unemployed | 9 (7.1 %) | 5 (8.8 %) | 14 (7.6 %) |
| Casual worker | 97 (76.4 %) | 41 (71.9 %) | 138 (75.0 %) |
| Salaried | 18 (14.2 %) | 2 (3.5 %) | 20 (10.9 %) |
| Dependant | 3 (2.4 %) | 9 (15.8 %) | 12 (6.5 %) |
Drug resistance patterns of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates
| Category | New cases | Retreatment cases | All cases | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 95 % CI |
| 95 % CI |
| 95 % CI | |
| Total patients |
|
|
| |||
| Any Resistance | 56 (35 %) | 27.61–42.39 | 5 (20.8) | 4.56–37.04 | 61 (33.1) | 26.3–39.3 |
| Any Resistance to: | ||||||
| STR | 10 (6.25) | 2.5–10.0 | 3 (12.5) | 0.73–25.73 | 13 (7.1) | 3.39–10.81 |
| INH | 40 (25) | 18.29–31.71 | 4 (20) | 4.0–36.0 | 44 (23.9) | 17.74–30.06 |
| RIF | 10 (6.25) | 2.5–10.0 | 2 (8.3) | 2.74–19.34 | 12 (6.5) | 2.94–10.06 |
| EMB | 21 (13) | 7.87–18.33 | 4 (16.7) | 1.78–31.62 | 25 (13.6) | 8.65–18.55 |
| Mono Resistance to | ||||||
| STR | 4 (2.5) | 0.08–4. 92 | 0 (0) | - | 4 (2.2) | 0.08–4.32 |
| INH | 25 (15.6) | 9.98–21.22 | 0 (0) | - | 25 (13.6) | 8.65–18.55 |
| RIF | 1 (0.63) | 0.6–1.86 | 0 (0) | - | 1 (0.5) | 0.52–1.52 |
| EMB | 10 (6.25) | 2.5–10.0 | 1 (4.16) | 3.83–12.15 | 11 (6.0) | 2.57–9.43 |
| INH + RIF Resistant (MDR) | ||||||
| INH + RIF only | 4 (2.5) | 0.08–4.92 | 0 (0) | - | 4 (2.2) | 0.08–4.32 |
| INH + RIF + EMB | 1 (0.63) | 0.6–1.86 | 0 (0) | - | 1 (0.5) | 0.52–1.52 |
| INH + RIF + STR | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | - | 0 (0) | - | |
| INH + RIF + EMB + STR | 2 (1.25) | 0.47–2.97 | 2 (8.3) | 2.74–19.34 | 4 (2.2) | 0.08–4.32 |
| Total MDR | 7 (4.4) | 1.22–7.58 | 2 (8.3) | 2.74–19.34 | 9 (4.9) | 1.78–8.02 |
| INH + other Resistance | ||||||
| INH + STR | 3 (1.9) | 0.22–4.02 | 1 (4.16) | 3.83–12.15 | 4 (2.2) | 0.08–4.32 |
| INH + EMB | 5 (3.1) | 0.41–5.79 | 1 (4.16) | 3.83–12.15 | 6 (3.3) | 0.72–5.88 |
| INH + STR + EMB | 1 (0.63) | 0.6–1.86 | 0 (0) | - | 1 (0.5) | 0.52–1.52 |
| RIF + other Resistance | ||||||
| RIF + EMB | 1 (0.63) | 0.6–1.86 | 0 (0) | - | 1 (0.5) | 0.52–1.52 |
| RIF + STR + EMB | 1 (0.63) | 0.6–1.86 | 0 (0) | - | 1 (0.5) | 0.52–1.52 |
Bivariate analysis of various risk factors for MDR development
| Category | OR | 95 % CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | upper | |||
| Previous TB treatment | 1.987 | 0.388 | 10.18 | 0.332 |
| Previous TB infection | 1.714 | 0.337 | 8.728 | 0.622 |
| Contact with TB case | 1.535 | 0.368 | 6.401 | 0.693 |
| Resistance to any one drug | 3.365 | 2.68 | 4.27 | 0.001 |