» Articles » PMID: 39682573

Implementation of Diagnostics with Macrolide-Resistance Detection Improves Patient Treatment Outcomes in Bulgaria

Overview
Specialty Radiology
Date 2024 Dec 17
PMID 39682573
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The increasing prevalence of infections with macrolide-resistance, causing high azithromycin failure rates, is a major concern internationally. In response to this challenge, diagnostics that simultaneously detect and genetic markers for macrolide-resistance enable the therapy to be individually tailored, i.e., to implement resistance-guided therapy (RGT). This study aimed to evaluate patient treatment outcomes of therapy, guided by a macrolide-resistance assay in Bulgaria. Consecutively referred infection cases ( = 17) were analyzed for macrolide-resistance mutations (MRMs) and specific antimicrobial treatment was recommended accordingly (MRMs-negative infections received azithromycin and MRMs-positive infections received moxifloxacin). The treatment outcome based on test-of-cure was recorded, and the treatment failure rates and time to achieve a microbiological cure were compared to treatment outcomes in patients treated before the implementation of RGT. : Among patients given RGT ( = 17), the overall treatment failure rate was 1/17 (5.9%). This was significantly lower than the rate (47.6%) observed in patients treated pre-RGT ( = 0.002). The time to achieve a microbiological cure was 29.4 days (CI 24.5-34.3), compared to 45.2 days (CI 36.5-53.7) pre-RGT ( = 0.001). The implementation of diagnostics with macrolide-resistance detection improved treatment outcomes in Bulgaria, with significantly lower treatment failure rates and reduced time to achieve a microbiological cure. In light of the limited treatment options and concerns about their decreasing efficacy in response to misuse and overuse, a diagnostic macrolide-resistance assay is critical to direct the appropriate first-line treatment, to maintain the efficacy of antimicrobial treatment (antibiotic stewardship) and to minimize the spread of antimicrobial resistance.

References
1.
Taylor-Robinson D, Jensen J . Mycoplasma genitalium: from Chrysalis to multicolored butterfly. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011; 24(3):498-514. PMC: 3131060. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00006-11. View

2.
Read T, Fairley C, Tabrizi S, Bissessor M, Vodstrcil L, Chow E . Azithromycin 1.5g Over 5 Days Compared to 1g Single Dose in Urethral Mycoplasma genitalium: Impact on Treatment Outcome and Resistance. Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 64(3):250-256. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciw719. View

3.
Lau A, Bradshaw C, Lewis D, Fairley C, Chen M, Kong F . The Efficacy of Azithromycin for the Treatment of Genital Mycoplasma genitalium: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2015; 61(9):1389-99. DOI: 10.1093/cid/civ644. View

4.
Wada K, Hamasuna R, Sadahira T, Araki M, Yamamoto S . UAA-AAUS guideline for M. genitalium and non-chlamydial non-gonococcal urethritis. J Infect Chemother. 2021; 27(10):1384-1388. DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2021.07.007. View

5.
Durukan D, Read T, Murray G, Doyle M, Chow E, Vodstrcil L . Resistance-Guided Antimicrobial Therapy Using Doxycycline-Moxifloxacin and Doxycycline-2.5 g Azithromycin for the Treatment of Mycoplasma genitalium Infection: Efficacy and Tolerability. Clin Infect Dis. 2019; 71(6):1461-1468. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz1031. View