MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019512690 · doi:10.2196/17009

Antimicrobial Resistance of Neisseria Gonorrhoeae in a Newly Implemented Surveillance Program in Uganda: Surveillance Report

2020· article· en· W3019512690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meklit Workneh, Matthew M. Hamill, Francis Kakooza, Emmanuel Mande, Jessica Wagner, Olive Mbabazi, Rodney Mugasha, Henry Kajumbula, Richard Walwema, Jonathan M. Zenilman, Patrick Musinguzi, Peter Kyambadde, Mohammed Lamorde, Yukari C. Manabe

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringJohns Hopkins UniversityNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of HealthWorld Health Organization
KeywordsEtestGonorrheaNeisseria gonorrhoeaeCiprofloxacinAntibiotic resistanceAzithromycinMedicineDrug resistanceUrethritisAntimicrobialMicrobiologyInternal medicineAntibioticsVirologyBiologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neisseria gonorrhoeae (commonly known as gonorrhea) has developed resistance to all first-line therapy in Southeast Asia. East Africa has historically had absent or rudimentary gonorrhea surveillance programs and, while the existence of antimicrobial-resistant gonorrhea is recognized, the extent of its resistance is largely unknown. In 2016, the World Health Organization's Enhanced Gonococcal Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (EGASP) was initiated in Uganda to monitor resistance trends. OBJECTIVE: This study characterizes gonorrhea and antibiotic resistance in a large surveillance program of men with urethral discharge syndrome from Kampala, Uganda. METHODS: Men attending sentinel clinics with urethritis provided demographic information, behavior data, and a urethral swab in line with the World Health Organization's EGASP protocols for culture, identification, and antibiotic-sensitivity testing using 2 methods-disk diffusion (Kirby-Bauer test) and Etest (BioMérieux Inc). A subset of samples underwent detailed antimicrobial resistance testing. RESULTS: Of 639 samples collected from September 2016 to February 2018, 400 (62.6%) were culture-positive though 414 (64.8%) had microscopic evidence of gonorrhea. The mean age of the men from whom the samples were collected was 26.9 (SD 9.6) years and 7.2% (46/639) reported having HIV. There was high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, and penicillin (greater than 90%) by Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion and 2.1% (4/188) had reduced azithromycin sensitivity by Etest. Of the early isolates that underwent detailed characterization, 60.3% (70/116) were culture-positive, 94% (66/69) isolates were either ciprofloxacin-resistant or ciprofloxacin-intermediate by Etest, 96% (65/68) were azithromycin-sensitive, and 96% (66/69) were gentamicin-sensitive. Resistance profiles were comparable between methods except for ceftriaxone (disk diffusion: 68/69, 99%; Etest: 67/69, 97%) and for gentamicin (disk diffusion: 2/8, 25%; Etest: 66/69, 96%) sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report from a systematic gonorrhea surveillance program in Uganda. Findings demonstrated resistance or increased minimum inhibitory concentration to all key antigonococcal antibiotics. There was evidence of poor antibiotic stewardship, near-universal resistance to several antibiotics, and emerging resistance to others. Individuals in the population sampled were at exceptionally high risk of STI and HIV infection requiring intervention. Ongoing surveillance efforts to develop interventions to curtail antimicrobial-resistant gonorrhea are needed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207