CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 273Reproductive tract infections researchMicrobial infections and disease researchAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence of mutations associated with resistance to macrolides and fluoroquinolones in Mycoplasma genitalium: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Machalek, Dorothy A, Tao, Yusha, Shilling, Hannah, Jensen, Jørgen S, Unemo, Magnus, Murray, Gerald, Chow, Eric P F, Low, Nicola, Garland, Suzanne M, Vodstrcil, Lenka A, Fairley, Christopher K, Hocking, Jane S, Zhang, Lei, Bradshaw, Catriona S·2020·The Lancet Infectious Diseases
DOI 10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30154-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND Mycoplasma genitalium is now recognised as an important bacterial sexually transmitted infection. We summarised data from studies of mutations associated with macrolide and fluoroquinolone resistance in M genitalium to establish the prevalence of resistance. We also investigated temporal trends in resistance and aimed to establish the association between resistance and geographical location. METHODS In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE for studies that included data for the prevalence of mutations associated with macrolide and fluoroquinolone resistance in M genitalium published in any language up to Jan 7, 2019. We defined prevalence as the proportion of M genitalium samples positive for key mutations associated with azithromycin resistance (23S rRNA gene, position 2058 or 2059) or moxifloxacin resistance (S83R, S83I, D87N, or D87Y in parC), or both, among all M genitalium samples that were successfully characterised. We used random-effects meta-analyses to calculate summary estimates of prevalence. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses by WHO region and time period were done. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016050370. RESULTS Overall, 59 studies from 21 countries met the inclusion criteria for our study: 57 studies of macrolide resistance (8966 samples), 25 of fluoroquinolone resistance (4003 samples), and 22 of dual resistance to macrolides and fluoroquinolones (3280 samples). The summary prevalence of mutations associated with macrolide resistance among M genitalium samples was 35·5% (95% CI 28·8-42·5); prevalence increased from 10·0% (95% CI 2·6-20·1%) before 2010, to 51·4% (40·3-62·4%) in 2016-17 (p<0·0001). Prevalence of mutations associated with macrolide resistance was significantly greater in samples in the WHO Western Pacific and Americas regions than in those from the WHO European region. The overall prevalence of mutations associated with fluoroquinolone resistance in M genitalium samples was 7·7% (95% CI 4·5-11·4%). Prevalence did not change significantly over time, but was significantly higher in the Western Pacific region than in the European region. Overall, the prevalence of both mutations associated with macrolide resistance and those associated with fluoroquinolone resistance among M genitalium samples was 2·8% (1·3-4·7%). The prevalence of dual resistance did not change significantly over time, and did not vary significantly by geographical region. INTERPRETATION Global surveillance and measures to optimise the efficacy of treatments-including resistance-guided strategies, new antimicrobials, and antimicrobial combination approaches-are urgently needed to ensure cure in a high proportion of M genitalium infections and to prevent further spread of resistant strains. FUNDING Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30154-7

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Murray, 2020, Moxifloxacin and sitafloxacin treatment failure in Mycoplasma genitalium infection: association with parC mutation G248T (S83I) and concurrent gyrA utations, J Infect Dis, 221, 1017
  2. Jensen, 2016, 2016 European guideline on Mycoplasma genitalium infections, J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 30, 1650, 10.1111/jdv.13849 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 273

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Machalek, D. A., Tao, Y., Shilling, H., Jensen, J. S., Unemo, M., Murray, G., Chow, E. P. F., Low, N., Garland, S. M., Vodstrcil, L. A., Fairley, C. K., Hocking, J. S., Zhang, L., & Bradshaw, C. S.
Affiliations
  • Royal Women's Hospital (AU)
  • The Alfred Hospital (AU)
  • Statens Serum Institut (DK)
  • Örebro University (SE)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Machalek, Dorothy A
ORCID
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
1302-1314
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30154-7
OpenAlex
W3038888845
Semantic Scholar
121969556aa4999049ccb6b492ce88b5ce6d7302
Cited by
273
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 16
FWCI
4.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Lancet Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Nabriva Therapeutics
  • Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Australian Government
  • Seqirus
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (568971)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology (medical) › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Keywords
Mycoplasma genitalium, macrolide resistance, fluoroquinolone resistance, antimicrobial resistance, 23S rRNA mutations, parC mutations, azithromycin resistance, moxifloxacin resistance, dual resistance, sexually transmitted infections, prevalence trends, WHO regions, resistance trends, antimicrobial susceptibility testing
MeSH terms
Moxifloxacin, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Carrier Proteins, Female, Humans, Male, Mutation, Mycoplasma Infections, RNA, Ribosomal, 23S, Transferases, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Bacterial, Prevalence, Azithromycin, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Drug Resistance, Bacterial, Mycoplasma genitalium

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review