You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Drug resistance patterns of predominant M. tuberculosis shared types as compared with genotype of CAS lineage.

From: Genotyping and drug resistance patterns of M. tuberculosis strains in Pakistan

clusters** Sensitive n(%)a Drug resistant isolates (n) as a percentage of total isolates in the clades (%)
   Rifampicin Isoniazid Streptomycin Ethambutol Pyrazinamide Total
CAS 245 (45) 252 (46) 258 (47) 141 (26) 210 (39) 297 (55) 568
EAI 17 (35) 30 (61) 32 (65) 17 (35) 24 (49) 29 (59) 42
P value   0.08 0.06 0.12 0.13 0.28  
Odds ratio   1.71 1.78 1.73 1.64 1.4  
95% CI   0.92–3.19 0.96–3.30 0.86–3.51 0.86–3.14 0.75–2.62  
Beijing 8 (32) 18 (72) 17 (68) 12 (48) 15 (60) 16 (64) 25
P value   0.071 0.1 0.041* 0.08 0.25  
Odds ratio   2.18 2.01 2.6 2.18 1.65  
95% CI   0.93–5.12 0.85–4.76 1.04–6.52 0.90–5.26 0.69–3.92  
Haarlem 9 (60) 4 (27) 6 (40) Not resistant 4 (27) 5 (33) 15
P value   0.16 0.25   0.67 0.16  
Odds ratio   0.43 0.52   0.772 0.45  
95% CI   0.13–1.42 0.17–1.59   0.23–2.55 0.15–1.38  
T 6 (30) 8 (40) 9 (45) 5 (25) 5 (25) 7 (35) 23
P value   0.63 0.5 0.54 0.96 0.94  
Odds ratio   1.29 1.42 1.44 0.97 0.96  
95% CI   0.44–3.79 0.5–4.0 0.43–4.8 0.29–3.23 0.31–3.90  
LAM 1 (50) 1 (50) 1 (50) 1 (50) 1 (50) 1 (50) 2
P value   0.98 0.97 0.69 0.91 0.89  
Odds ratio   0.97 0.95 1.73 1.61 0.82  
95% CI   0.06–15.03 0.05–15.26 0.10–27.99 0.07–18.76 0.05–13.25  
Other Orphan-Pak b 20 (38) 19 (36) 21 (40) 9 (17) 19 (36) 13 (24) 46
P value   0.93 0.99 0.55 0.75 0.08  
Odds ratio   0,97 0.99 0.78 1.1 0.53  
95% CI   0.51–1.85 0.52–1.88 0.34–1.76 0.57–2.13 0.26–1.1  
Orphan types 96 (47) 106 (52) 137 (67) 130 (63) 177 (86) 129 (63) 205
P value   0.67 0.058 0.001* 0.001* 0.52  
Odds ratio   1.03 1.35 2.35 2.15 1.1  
95% CI   0.77–1.48 0.99–1.85 1.68–3.29 1.57–2.93 0.81–1.1  
  1. aSensitive to first line drugs (Rifampicin, Isoniazid, Streptomycin, Ethambutol and Pyrazinamide)
  2. bIncludes a total of 18 clusters
  3. **Strain genotypes as listed in Fig. 1
  4. * Significant difference compared to CAS genotypes