TY - JOUR
T1 - Differences in Drug-Susceptibility Patterns between Mycobacterium avium, Mycobacterium intracellulare, and Mycobacterium chimaera Clinical Isolates
T2 - Prospective 8.5-Year Analysis by Three Laboratories
AU - Fernandez-Pittol, Mariana
AU - Batista-Arnau, Sara
AU - Román, Angely
AU - San Nicolás, Lorena
AU - Oliver, Laura
AU - González-Moreno, Olga
AU - Martínez, José Antonio
AU - Amaro-Rodríguez, Rosanel
AU - Soler, Néstor
AU - Gené, Amadeu
AU - González-Cuevas, Araceli
AU - Tudó, Griselda
AU - Gonzalez-Martin, Julian
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 by the authors.
PY - 2023/1
Y1 - 2023/1
N2 - Background: It has been suggested that Mycobacterium avium, Mycobacterium intracellulare, and M. chimaera have differential drug susceptibility patterns. We prospectively analyzed and compared the drug susceptibility patterns among these species over an 8.5-year period. Methods: A microdilution method (Slomyco®) was performed for drug susceptibility testing of 402 M. avium, 273 M. intracellulare, and 139 M. chimaera clinical isolates. Results: M. avium showed significantly higher resistance to moxifloxacin, ciprofloxacin, rifampicin, ethambutol, streptomycin, linezolid, cotrimoxazole, and clarithromycin. M. avium also showed higher minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) than M. intracellulare and M. chimaera against all drugs except ethionamide, to which M. intracellulare and M. chimaera showed greater resistance. Conclusions: Our series demonstrated differential drug resistance patterns among the most frequent M. avium complex species. M. avium was more resistant than M. intracellulare and M. chimaera versus eight antibiotics and showed greater MIC values to most of the antibiotics studied. These data suggest that knowledge of the local distribution and susceptibility profiles of these pathogens is essential for adequate clinical management.
AB - Background: It has been suggested that Mycobacterium avium, Mycobacterium intracellulare, and M. chimaera have differential drug susceptibility patterns. We prospectively analyzed and compared the drug susceptibility patterns among these species over an 8.5-year period. Methods: A microdilution method (Slomyco®) was performed for drug susceptibility testing of 402 M. avium, 273 M. intracellulare, and 139 M. chimaera clinical isolates. Results: M. avium showed significantly higher resistance to moxifloxacin, ciprofloxacin, rifampicin, ethambutol, streptomycin, linezolid, cotrimoxazole, and clarithromycin. M. avium also showed higher minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) than M. intracellulare and M. chimaera against all drugs except ethionamide, to which M. intracellulare and M. chimaera showed greater resistance. Conclusions: Our series demonstrated differential drug resistance patterns among the most frequent M. avium complex species. M. avium was more resistant than M. intracellulare and M. chimaera versus eight antibiotics and showed greater MIC values to most of the antibiotics studied. These data suggest that knowledge of the local distribution and susceptibility profiles of these pathogens is essential for adequate clinical management.
KW - AST
KW - MAC-complex
KW - MIC-values
KW - susceptibility profiles
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85146807103
U2 - 10.3390/antibiotics12010064
DO - 10.3390/antibiotics12010064
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85146807103
SN - 2079-6382
VL - 12
JO - Antibiotics
JF - Antibiotics
IS - 1
M1 - 64
ER -