The findings and conclusions in these presentations have not been formally disseminated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Tuesday, May 9, 2006
112

Quinolone-Resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae (QRNG) Surveillance: Integrating Molecular Resistance Testing into Clinical Care

Tukisa D. Smith1, Julie A. Giles2, Khalil G. Ghanem1, Johan H. Melendez1, Vince Marsiglia3, F. Kathleen Keane4, Margaret C. Bash4, and Jonathan M. Zenilman1. (1) Department of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, JHUBMC, 4940 Eastern Avenue, B3 North, Baltimore, MD, USA, (2) University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 725 W. Lombard St., Rm. 410, Laboratory of Viral Diagnostics, Baltimore, MD, USA, (3) Druid Health District, Baltimore City Health Department, Baltimore, MD, USA, (4) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, MD, USA


Background:
QRNG prevalence has increased in the U.S., especially in gay men and in the West. Traditional diagnosis is based on culture susceptibility testing-which cannot be performed when nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) are used for NG diagnosis. We have developed direct NAAT probes for QRNG and other resistance determinants in NG.

Objective:
To test the feasibility and outcome of using a NAAT-based resistance assay in an STD clinic environment in Baltimore-an area not considered hyperendemic for QRNG.

Method:
We collected 716 NG clinical samples from March to October 2005 from patients attending Baltimore STD clinics. We analyzed for point mutations in the quinolone resistance-determining region of gyrA and parC, using polymerase chain reaction, Roche LightTyperTM fluorescence melting curve analysis, and direct sequencing. On samples with mutations, minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to ciprofloxacin (CIP) was determined by E-test.

Result:
38/716 (5.3%) of isolates contained mutations in gyrA, parC, or both. Of the 21/38 (55.3%) mutation containing strains with that could be re-cultured 5/21 (24%) were CIP-R (resistant; MIC≥ 1µg/mL), and 9/21(43%) were CIP-I (intermediate; MIC= 0.12-0.5µg/mL). In reviewing the clinical records, 40% of the cipR and 67% of CIP-I strains were isolated from patients not known to be part of a QRNG high-risk group.

Conclusion:
Molecular-based resistance testing surveillance found a much higher prevalence of mutations than was clinically suspected. A large proportion of QRNG did not have CDC-defined risk factors, indicating an early endemic pattern in an area with low QRNG by traditional surveillance.

Implications:
Optimizing and integrating real-time high throughput non-culture based molecular assays into surveillance and clinical care may better define the local epidemiology of resistant organisms and help guide appropriate therapeutic decisions, and are a potential solution to antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the NAAT era.