2020
DOI: 10.1089/mdr.2019.0215
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Second Line Injectable Drug Resistance and Associated Genetic Mutations in Newly Diagnosed Cases of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the present study, among 27 SLID resistant isolates, the most frequent mutation detected was rrs A1401G (40.7%), which was consistent with the reports from China, 4,6,49 Georgia America, 50 eSwatini, Uganda and Somalia 48 and Northwest Pakistan, 51 while different from the report from India which showed that the most prevalent mutation was eis C (−12)T (46.1%). 52 As for the SLID resistance, the RDBH assay showed 51.9% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to the phenotypic DST. The inclusion of probes targeted at mutations in the eis promoter in the RDBH assay obtained an increased sensitivity with 11.1% than that based on probes targeted only in rrs 1400 region, which was comparable to the reported sensitivity differences between MTBDRsl v2.0, which added probes targeted at eis promoter, and MTBDRsl v1.0.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…In the present study, among 27 SLID resistant isolates, the most frequent mutation detected was rrs A1401G (40.7%), which was consistent with the reports from China, 4,6,49 Georgia America, 50 eSwatini, Uganda and Somalia 48 and Northwest Pakistan, 51 while different from the report from India which showed that the most prevalent mutation was eis C (−12)T (46.1%). 52 As for the SLID resistance, the RDBH assay showed 51.9% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to the phenotypic DST. The inclusion of probes targeted at mutations in the eis promoter in the RDBH assay obtained an increased sensitivity with 11.1% than that based on probes targeted only in rrs 1400 region, which was comparable to the reported sensitivity differences between MTBDRsl v2.0, which added probes targeted at eis promoter, and MTBDRsl v1.0.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…According to Yadav et al [ 24 ], levofloxacin and kanamycin resistance using phenotypic DST was respectively, 176/415 (42.4%) and 40/415 (9.6%). A study from India showed phenotypic resistance to ofloxacin (59.1%), SLIDs (11.8%,) and to both antibiotics (10.0%) by phenotypic drug susceptibility testing using the MGIT 960 system [ 26 ]. According to Singh et al [ 27 ], who used phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST) assess baseline resistance to second-line drugs DST, RR-TB positive patients also showed a high resistance to fluoroquinolones (FQs; levofloxacin 56%; moxifloxacin 44%) followed by kanamycin (8%) and capreomycin (6%).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the same time the un expected occurrence of amikacin resistant isolates at high frequency (26.5%) in this group is an alarming situation that further limits the spectrum of already limited number of second line drugs. The prevalence of amikacin resistance in M. tuberculosis usually falls below 10% [23][24][25]. Most likely, amikacin resistance in these isolates is not the consequence of the prior exposure to amikacin as infected patients were not on amikacin treatment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%