| Literature DB >> 35453236 |
Belén Rivaya1,2, Chloé Le Roy3, Elena Jordana-Lluch1,2,4, Gema Fernández-Rivas1,2, Cristina Casañ1,2, Victoria González1,2,4,5,6, Jun Hao Wang-Wang1,2, Cécile Bébéar3,7, Lurdes Matas1,2,6, Sabine Pereyre3,7.
Abstract
Macrolide and fluoroquinolone resistance (MLr/FQr) in Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) infections is concerning worldwide. Current guidelines recommend performing MLr detection in MG-positive cases to adjust antimicrobial therapy. We aimed to evaluate the usefulness of PCR followed by pyrosequencing for MLr detection in comparison with a one-step commercial assay and to assess the prevalence of MLr and FQr in Badalona, Spain. A total of 415 MG-positive samples by Allplex STI-7 (Seegene) were analyzed for MLr detection by pyrosequencing. From those, 179 samples were further analyzed for MG and MLr by ResistancePlus® MG kit (SpeeDx) and 100 of them also for fluoroquinolone resistance (FQr) by sequencing the parC gene. Regarding MG detection, Allplex and Resistance Plus® showed an overall agreement of 87%, but this value rose to 95.4% if we compare them for MLr detection. Prevalence of MLr was 23.1% in Badalona, but this rate increased to 73.7% in the HIV-positive patients cohort. FQr detection showed 3% of resistant strains. Pyrosequencing is a convenient and cheap technique for MLr detection, but one-step tools should be considered in high-throughput laboratories. Despite the fact that MLr remained moderate and FQr was low in our study, simultaneous MG and MLr detection would improve patient's management applying resistance-guided treatment strategies.Entities:
Keywords: Mycoplasma genitalium; Spain; fluoroquinolone; macrolide; resistance
Year: 2022 PMID: 35453236 PMCID: PMC9025937 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11040485
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Samples and origin.
| Origin | Sample Type | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endocervical Swab | Urine | Rectal Swab | Urethral Swab | Total | |
| ASSIR * | 291 | 73 | 1 | 6 | 371 |
| HIV Unit | 0 | 18 | 17 | 2 | 37 |
| Ginecology & Obstetrics | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Total ( | 298 | 91 | 18 | 8 | 415 |
| Total (%) | 71.8 | 21.9 | 4.3 | 1.9 | 100.0 |
* ASSIR: Sexual Reproductive Health Centers.
Figure 1Symptoms and signs of patients included during the prospective phase of the study (Symptom, n, %). * Asymptomatic section includes STI contacts and patients with previous unprotected sex. ** Other: dysuria (n = 4), pruritus (n = 4), infertility (n = 2), test of cure (n = 1), amenorrhea (n = 1).
Epidemiological data and clinical findings of MG infections of 136 patients included in the prospective phase of the study.
| Women ( | MSW ( | MSM ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age (range) | 27.5 (16–56) | 30.3 (20–44) | 36.7 (24–55) |
| HIV+ ( | - | 2 (5.3%) | 36 (94.7%) |
| Specimens ( | |||
| Endocervical swab | 67 (80.7%) | - | - |
| Urine | 16 (19.3%) | 14 (82.3%) | 17 (47.2%) |
| Urethral swab | - | 3 (17.7%) | 2 (5.6%) |
| Rectal swab | - | - | 17 (47.2%) |
| Clinical findings | |||
| Symptomatic | 40 (48.2%) | 8 (47.1%) | 13 (36.1%) |
| Asymptomatic | 43 (51.8%) | 9 (52.9%) | 23 (63.9%) |
| STI coinfections | |||
| MG monoinfection | 18 | 12 | 16 |
|
| 10 a | - | 1 |
|
| - | - | 3 |
| Syphilis (data only from HIV+ patients) | - | 1 | 4 |
| Commensal mycoplasmas * | 55 | 4 b | 12 |
| Macrolide resistance | 25/80 ** (31.2%) | 11/17 (64.7%) | 25/36 (69.4%) |
| A2058G (pyrosequencing) | 14 (32.5%) | 2 (11.8%) | 11 (30.6%) |
| A2059G (pyrosequencing) | 9 (20.9%) | 8 (47.1%) | 4 (11.1%) |
| A2058T (pyrosequencing) | 2 (4.6%) | 1 (5.9%) | - |
| Resistance detected (ResistancePlus®) | Not determined | Not determined | 10 (27.8%) |
| No resistance detected (ResistancePlus®) | Not determined | Not determined | 5 (13.9%) |
| Wild-type (pyrosequencing) | 55 (35%) | 6 (35.2%) | 5 (13.9%) |
| Not performed | 3 (7%) | - | 1 (2.7%) |
| Fluoroquinolone resistance | 1/28 | 1/9 | - |
| Yes ( | 1 | 1 | - |
| No | 27 | 8 | - |
| Not performed | 55 | 8 | - |
MSW—men who have sex with women; MSM—men who have sex with men. * Commensal mycoplasmas—M. hominis, U. parvum, U. urealyticum. ** Three women samples could not be analyzed for MLr. a In 8/10 cases, codetection with other agents (M. hominis, Ureaplasma spp.). b In all cases, codetection with U. parvum.
Figure 2MLr strains detected during the study period.