Twenty-five-year changing pattern of gonococcal antimicrobial susceptibility in Shanghai: surveillance and its impact on treatment guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae is a serious health problem in China. Gonococcal antimicrobial susceptibility has been monitored in Shanghai since 1988. In this study, we examined the changing pattern of gonococcal antimicrobial susceptibility based on data from N. gonorrhoeae isolates collected over the past 25 years. METHODS: Approximately 100-200 isolates each year (1988-2013) were tested for their susceptibility to penicillin (PEN), tetracycline (TET), ciprofloxacin (CIP), ceftriaxone (CRO) and spectinomycin (SPT), using the agar dilution method. Plasmid-mediated N. gonorrhoeae antimicrobial resistance, comprising penicillinase-producing N. gonorrhoeae (presumed PPNG) and high-level tetracycline resistance N. gonorrhoeae (presumed TRNG), were also determined. Breakpoints for susceptibilities followed those described by the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute and the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. RESULTS: A high proportion of isolates were resistant to PEN, TET and CIP, ranging from less than 20% at the beginning of the survey, increasing in the late 1990s and reaching over 90% in recent years. The proportion of isolates exhibiting plasmid-mediated resistance exceeded 38% for presumed PPNG and 20% for presumed TRNG in recent years. The proportion of CRO nonsusceptible isolates (MIC ≥ 0.125 mg/L) ranged from 7% to 13% in most of the study years. Almost all isolates were susceptible to SPT. The SPT MIC90 was 16-32 mg/L for 2008-2013. The proportion of CRO nonsusceptible-associated multiple-drug-resistant (MDR) isolates was over 5% in most of the study years. CONCLUSIONS: N. gonorrhoeae isolates in Shanghai were resistant to PEN, TET and CIP. Furthermore, CRO nonsusceptible and MDR isolates were prevalent. N. gonorrhoeae isolates were also found to be susceptible to SPT. It is recommended that the CRO dose be increased from currently recommended 250 mg to 500 mg and that SPT be an alternative in treating urogenital gonorrhea. Our findings highlight the importance of both regional and national surveillance programs for the prompt modification of treatment guidelines, vital in responding to the changing pattern of gonococcal antimicrobial susceptibility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".