Tim R H Read1,2, Christopher K Fairley3,2, Sepehr N Tabrizi4,5,6, Melanie Bissessor3,2, Lenka Vodstrcil2, Eric P F Chow3,2, Mieken Grant2, Jennifer Danielewski4,6, Suzanne M Garland4,5,6, Jane S Hocking7, Marcus Y Chen3,2, Catriona S Bradshaw3,2. 1. Central Clinical School, Monash University, and tread@mshc.org.au. 2. Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Central Clinical School, Monash University, and. 4. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne. 6. Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the Royal Women's Hospital, and. 7. Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the impact of extended azithromycin (1.5g over 5 days) on selection of macrolide resistance and microbiological cure in men with Mycoplasma genitalium urethritis during 2013-2015 and compared this to cases treated with azithromycin 1g in 2012-2013. METHODS: Microbiological cure was determined for men with M. genitalium urethritis treated with azithromycin 1.5g using quantitative polymerase chain reaction specific for M. genitalium DNA on samples 14-100 days post-treatment. Pre- and post-treatment macrolide resistance mutations were detected by sequencing the 23 S gene. RESULTS: There was no difference in proportions with microbiological cure between azithromycin 1.5g and 1g: 62/106 (58%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 49%, 68%) and 56/107 (52%; 95%CI 42-62%), P = .34, respectively. Also, there was no difference in the proportion of wild-type 23 S rRNA (presumed macrolide sensitive) infections cured after 1.5g and azithromycin 1g: 28/34 (82%; 95%CI 65-92%) and 49/60 (82%; 95%CI 70-90%), P=1.0, respectively. There was no difference between 1.5g and 1g in the proportions of wild-type infections with post-treatment resistance mutations: 4/34 (12%; 95%CI 3-27%) and 11/60 (18%; 95%CI 10-30%), respectively, P = .40. Pre-treatment resistance was present in 51/98 (52%; 95%CI 42-62%) cases in 2013-2015 compared to 47/107 (44%; 95%CI 34-54%) in 2012-2013, P = .25. CONCLUSIONS: Extended azithromycin 1.5g was no more effective than a single 1g dose at achieving cure of M. genitalium urethritis and importantly did not reduce the selection of macrolide resistance. Nonmacrolide and new approaches for the treatment of M. genitalium urethritis are required.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the impact of extended azithromycin (1.5g over 5 days) on selection of macrolide resistance and microbiological cure in men with Mycoplasma genitalium urethritis during 2013-2015 and compared this to cases treated with azithromycin 1g in 2012-2013. METHODS: Microbiological cure was determined for men with M. genitaliumurethritis treated with azithromycin 1.5g using quantitative polymerase chain reaction specific for M. genitalium DNA on samples 14-100 days post-treatment. Pre- and post-treatment macrolide resistance mutations were detected by sequencing the 23 S gene. RESULTS: There was no difference in proportions with microbiological cure between azithromycin 1.5g and 1g: 62/106 (58%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 49%, 68%) and 56/107 (52%; 95%CI 42-62%), P = .34, respectively. Also, there was no difference in the proportion of wild-type 23 S rRNA (presumed macrolide sensitive) infections cured after 1.5g and azithromycin 1g: 28/34 (82%; 95%CI 65-92%) and 49/60 (82%; 95%CI 70-90%), P=1.0, respectively. There was no difference between 1.5g and 1g in the proportions of wild-type infections with post-treatment resistance mutations: 4/34 (12%; 95%CI 3-27%) and 11/60 (18%; 95%CI 10-30%), respectively, P = .40. Pre-treatment resistance was present in 51/98 (52%; 95%CI 42-62%) cases in 2013-2015 compared to 47/107 (44%; 95%CI 34-54%) in 2012-2013, P = .25. CONCLUSIONS: Extended azithromycin 1.5g was no more effective than a single 1g dose at achieving cure of M. genitaliumurethritis and importantly did not reduce the selection of macrolide resistance. Nonmacrolide and new approaches for the treatment of M. genitaliumurethritis are required.
Authors: Arlene C Seña; Laura Bachmann; Christine Johnston; Teodora Wi; Kimberly Workowski; Edward W Hook; Jane S Hocking; George Drusano; Magnus Unemo Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Evelyn Toh; Xiang Gao; James A Williams; Teresa A Batteiger; Lisa A Coss; Michelle LaPradd; Jie Ren; William M Geisler; Yue Xing; Qunfeng Dong; David E Nelson; Stephen J Jordan Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: E L Sweeney; E Trembizki; C Bletchly; C S Bradshaw; A Menon; F Francis; J Langton-Lockton; G R Nimmo; D M Whiley Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Jodie Dionne-Odom; William M Geisler; Kristal J Aaron; Ken B Waites; Andrew O Westfall; Barbara Van Der Pol; Li Xiao Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Leonor Henriette de Lannoy; Roberto José de Carvalho da Silva; Edilbert Pellegrini Nahn Júnior; Eduardo Campos de Oliveira; Pâmela Cristina Gaspar Journal: Rev Soc Bras Med Trop Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 1.581