Phenotypic and genotypic properties of Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates in Norway in 2009: antimicrobial resistance warrants an immediate change in national management guidelines
- 184 Downloads
Despite rapidly diminishing treatment options for Neisseria gonorrhoeae and high levels of ciprofloxacin resistance worldwide, Norwegian guidelines still recommend ciprofloxacin as empirical treatment for gonorrhea. The present study aimed to characterize phenotypical and genotypical properties of N. gonorrhoeae isolates in Norway in 2009. All viable N. gonorrhoeae isolates (n = 114) from six university hospitals in Norway (2009) were collected, representing 42% of all notified gonorrhea cases. Epidemiological data were collected from the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases and linked to phenotypical and genotypical characteristics for each N. gonorrhoeae isolate. Resistance levels to the antimicrobials examined were: ciprofloxacin 78%, azithromycin 11%, cefixime 3.5%, ceftriaxone 1.8%, and spectinomycin 0%. The minimum inhibitory concentrations of gentamicin varied from 1.5 to 8 mg/L. Forty-one (36%) of the isolates were β-lactamase-producing, 17 displayed penA mosaic alleles, and 72 different N. gonorrhoeae multiantigen sequence types (ST; 37 novel) were identified. The most common ST was ST1407 (n = 11), containing penA mosaic allele. Four of these isolates displayed intermediate susceptibility/resistance to cefixime. The N. gonorrhoeae strains circulating in Norway were highly diverse. The level of ciprofloxacin resistance was high and the Norwegian management guidelines should promptly exclude ciprofloxacin as an empirical treatment option for gonorrhea.
This work was financially supported by the Örebro County Council Research Committee, the Foundation for Medical Research at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden, and the University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway. The collection of isolates and initial diagnosis was performed and funded by the participating University hospitals as part of their routine diagnosis.
- 4.Unemo M, Golparian D, Syversen G, Vestrheim DF, Moi H (2010) Two cases of verified clinical failures using internationally recommended first-line cefixime for gonorrhoea treatment, Norway, 2010. Euro Surveill 15(47) pii: 19721Google Scholar
- 5.Ison CA, Hussey J, Sankar KN, Evans J, Alexander S (2011) Gonorrhoea treatment failures to cefixime and azithromycin in England, 2010. Euro Surveill 16(14) pii: 19833Google Scholar
- 10.Romøren M, Juvkam KH, Moi H, Gonoré (2008) In: Linbæk M (ed) Nasjonale faglige retningslinjer for antibiotikabruk i primærhelsetjenesten. Helsedirektoratet, Oslo, pp 120–123Google Scholar
- 12.Janda WM, Knapp JS (2011) Neisseria and Moraxella catarrhalis. In: Murray PR, Baron EJ, Jorgensen JH, Pfaller MA, Yolken RH (eds) Manual of clinical microbiology, 8th edn. ASM Press, Washington D.C, pp 585–608Google Scholar
- 13.Van Dyck E, Meheus A, Piot P (1999) Laboratory diagnosis of sexually transmitted diseases. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 14.Unemo M, Fasth O, Fredlund H, Limnios A, Tapsall J (2009) Phenotypic and genetic characterization of the 2008 WHO Neisseria gonorrhoeae reference strain panel intended for global quality assurance and quality control of gonococcal antimicrobial resistance surveillance for public health purposes. J Antimicrob Chemother 63(6):1142–1151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Unemo M, Golparian D, Hestner A (2011) Ceftriaxone treatment failure of pharyngeal gonorrhoea verified by international recommendations, Sweden, July 2010. Euro Surveill 16(6) pii: 19792Google Scholar