Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content
CDC Home

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 of Page

USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY: (888) 232-6348 - Contact CDC–INFO