Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 11, Number 6—June 2005

Dispatch

Macrolide- and Telithromycin-resistant Streptococcus pyogenes, Belgium, 1999–20031

Surbhi Malhotra-Kumar*Comments to Author , Christine Lammens*, Sabine Chapelle*, Monique Wijdooghe*, Jasper Piessens*, Koen Van Herck*, and Herman Goossens*
Author affiliations: *University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

Main Article

Table 2

Temporal changes in the distribution of major pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and emm types among the 3 macrolide-resistant Streptococcus pyogenes phenotypes*

Macrolide-resistant phenotype Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis cluster (emm type) Frequency (n = 506) No. (%) of macrolide-resistant S. pyogenes
1999 (n = 81) 2000 (n = 41) 2001 (n = 73) 2002 (n = 215) 2003 (n = 96)
Constitutive 1 (emm22) 70 45 (56%) 7 (17%)† 9 (12%) 7 (3%) 2 (2%)
4 (emm28) 45 4 (5%) 15 (7%) 26 (27%)
23 (emm11) 28 1 (1%) 6 (3%) 21 (22%)
M 1001 (emm1) 128 7 (9%) 12 (29%) 23 (32%) 80 (37%)‡ 6 (6%)‡
1002 (emm4 ) 28 2 (2.5%) 2 (5%) 7 (10%) 7 (3%) 10 (10%)

*A ≤6-band difference was employed to assign isolates to a clone according to Tenover et al. (8). PFGE clusters up to 100 designate restriction with SmaI and clusters ≥1,000 designate restriction with SfiI.
†Decrease in prevalence of the 1/emm22 clone from 1999 to 2000 was highly significant (p<0.001).
‡Both the increase and decrease in prevalence of the 1001/emm1 clone from 2001 to 2002 and from 2002 to 2003, respectively, were significant (p<0.01).

Main Article

1A preliminary account of this work was presented at the 44th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, October 30–November 2, 2004, Washington DC, USA.

TOP