肺结核患者对贝达喹啉、德拉马尼和利奈唑胺的耐药情况分析

doi:10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20260349

中国防痨杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (10): 1523-1530.doi: 10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20260349

肺结核患者对贝达喹啉、德拉马尼和利奈唑胺的耐药情况分析

苏达宏¹, 李晓丽², 杨斌¹, 施亦衡¹, 林威兵¹, 苗甜甜¹, 赵金凤¹, 马尚¹, 霍凤敏¹, 王桂荣¹()

¹ 首都医科大学附属北京胸科医院/北京市结核病胸部肿瘤研究所检验科, 北京 101149
² 北京百普赛斯生物科技股份有限公司, 北京 100176

收稿日期:2026-06-12 出版日期:2026-10-10 发布日期:2026-09-30
通信作者: 王桂荣,Email:wangguirong1230@ccmu.edu.cn
基金资助:
新发突发与重大传染病防控国家科技重大专项(2025ZD01907903);北京市医疗卫生领域高层次创新创业人才“青苗计划”(G202522153);细胞与基因治疗精准检测与质量评价北京市重点实验室

Analysis of drug resistance to bedaquiline, delamanid and linezolid in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis

Su Dahong¹, Li Xiaoli², Yang Bin¹, Shi Yiheng¹, Lin Weibing¹, Miao Tiantian¹, Zhao Jinfeng¹, Ma Shang¹, Huo Fengmin¹, Wang Guirong¹()

¹ Department of Clinical Laboratory, Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Tuberculosis and Thoracic Tumor Institute, Beijing 101149, China
² ACROBiosystems, Beijing 100176, China

Received:2026-06-12 Online:2026-10-10 Published:2026-09-30
Contact: Wang Guirong, Email: wangguirong1230@ccmu.edu.cn
Supported by:
National Science and Technology Major Project for the Prevention and Control of Emerging, Sudden-Onset and Major Infectious Diseases(2025ZD01907903);“Qingmiao” Program for High-level Innovative and Entrepreneurial Talents in the Medical and Health Sector of Beijing(G202522153);Beijing Key Laboratory of Precision Detection and Quality Evaluation for Cell and Gene Therapy

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 了解肺结核患者对贝达喹啉(bedaquiline,Bdq)、德拉马尼(delamanid,Dlm)、利奈唑胺(linezolid,Lzd)的耐药特点,为临床医生制定耐药肺结核患者个体化治疗方案提供参考。方法: 采用回顾性研究方法,收集2025年3—12月首都医科大学附属北京胸科医院收治的445例门诊及住院肺结核患者的临床资料,包括性别、年龄、职业、居住地、病史、用药方案、药物敏感试验结果等。药物敏感试验采用分枝杆菌微孔板药敏检测技术,检测研究对象临床分离菌株对异烟肼、利福平、乙胺丁醇、Dlm、Bdq、利福布汀、左氧氟沙星、莫西沙星、卡那霉素、阿米卡星、环丝氨酸、丙硫异烟胺、对氨基水杨酸、Lzd、吡嗪酰胺和氯法齐明16种药物的敏感性。分析肺结核患者的基本信息、初治或复治情况、耐药情况,以及使用过Bdq、Dlm、Lzd的患者中相应药物的耐药情况。结果: 445例肺结核患者对16种抗结核药的总耐药率为47.9%(213/445),利福平耐药率、耐多药率、广泛耐药率分别为30.1%(134/445)、23.4%(104/445)和3.8%(17/445)。Bdq、Dlm、Lzd的耐药率分别为2.7%(12/445)、4.0%(18/445)、3.8%(17/445),且复治患者的耐药率均明显高于初治患者[Bdq:6.4%(11/171)对比 0.4%(1/274);Dlm:7.0%(12/171)对比2.2%(6/274);Lzd:8.8%(15/171)对比0.7%(2/274)],差异均有统计学意义(χ²值分别为12.552、6.323、16.409,P值均<0.05)。耐多药/利福平耐药肺结核患者对Bdq、Dlm、Lzd的耐药率均明显高于非利福平耐药肺结核患者[Bdq:6.7%(9/134)对比1.0%(3/311);Dlm:7.5%(10/134)对比2.6%(8/311);Lzd:11.9%(16/134)对比0.3%(1/311)],差异均有统计学意义(χ²值分别为9.717、5.770、31.318,P值均<0.05)。耐多药/利福平耐药肺结核患者中Bdq+Dlm、Bdq+Lzd、Dlm+Lzd、Bdq+Dlm+Lzd 的耐药率分别为4.5%(6/134)、3.7%(5/134)、5.2%(7/134)、3.0%(4/134)。使用Bdq的患者对Bdq的耐药率为8.4%(8/95),明显高于未使用者[1.1%(4/350)];使用Dlm的患者对Dlm的耐药率为9.1%(7/77),明显高于未使用者[3.0%(11/368)];使用Lzd的患者对Lzd的耐药率为13.8%(11/80),明显高于未使用者[1.6%(6/365)];差异均有统计学意义(χ²值分别为12.438、6.108、26.174,P值均<0.05)。结论: 肺结核患者对Bdq、Dlm、Lzd的耐药率总体处于较低水平,但复治患者、耐多药/利福平耐药肺结核患者及使用过上述药物的患者中耐药率相对较高,用药者中的耐药率明显高于未用药者,提示在新型抗结核药物使用过程中应加强耐药监测。

关键词: 结核,肺, 微生物敏感性试验, 抗药性,细菌, 抗结核药

Abstract:

Objective: To investigate the characteristics of drug resistance to bedaquiline (Bdq), delamanid (Dlm) and linezolid (Lzd) in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis, and to provide evidence for clinicians to develop individualized treatment regimens for drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis cases. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted. Clinical data of 445 outpatient and inpatient pulmonary tuberculosis patients admitted to Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University from March to December 2025 were collected, including gender, age, occupation, residential area, medical history, treatment regimens and drug susceptibility testing (DST) results. DST was performed with the mycobacterial microplate drug susceptibility testing technique to determine the susceptibility of clinically isolated Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains to 16 anti-tuberculosis agents: isoniazid, rifampicin, ethambutol, Dlm, Bdq, rifabutin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, kanamycin, amikacin, cycloserine, protionamide, para-aminosalicylic acid, Lzd, pyrazinamide and clofazimine. We analyzed the baseline characteristics, initial/retreatment status and overall drug resistance profile of the enrolled patients, as well as the resistance rates to Bdq, Dlm and Lzd among patients with prior exposure to these drugs. Results: Among the 445 patients, the overall drug resistance rate to the 16 anti-tuberculosis drugs was 47.9% (213/445), with a rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis rate of 30.1% (134/445),a multidrug-resistant tuberculosis rate of 23.4% (104/445) and an extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis rate of 3.8% (17/445). The resistance rates to Bdq, Dlm and Lzd were 2.7% (12/445), 4.0% (18/445) and 3.8% (17/445), respectively. Retreated patients had significantly higher resistance rates to all three drugs than treatment-naive patients (Bdq: 6.4% (11/171) vs. 0.4% (1/274); Dlm: 7.0% (12/171) vs. 2.2% (6/274); Lzd: 8.8% (15/171) vs. 0.7% (2/274)), with statistically significant differences (χ²=12.552, 6.323 and 16.409, respectively; all P<0.05). The resistance rates to Bdq, Dlm and Lzd in MDR/RR-TB patients were significantly higher than those in non-rifampicin-resistant patients (Bdq: 6.7% (9/134) vs. 1.0% (3/311); Dlm: 7.5% (10/134) vs. 2.6% (8/311); Lzd: 11.9% (16/134) vs. 0.3% (1/311)), with statistically significant differences (χ²=9.717, 5.770 and 31.318, respectively; all P<0.05). Among MDR/RR-TB patients, the co-resistance rates of Bdq+Dlm, Bdq+Lzd, Dlm+Lzd and Bdq+Dlm+Lzd were 4.5% (6/134), 3.7% (5/134), 5.2% (7/134) and 3.0% (4/134), respectively. The Bdq resistance rate in patients with prior Bdq exposure was 8.4% (8/95), significantly higher than that in Bdq-naive patients (1.1% (4/350)). The Dlm resistance rate in patients with prior Dlm exposure reached 9.1% (7/77), significantly higher than that in Dlm-naive patients (3.0% (11/368)). The Lzd resistance rate in patients with prior Lzd exposure was 13.8% (11/80), significantly higher than that in Lzd-naive patients (1.6% (6/365)). All above differences were statistically significant (χ²=12.438, 6.108 and 26.174, respectively; all P<0.05). Conclusion: The overall resistance rates to Bdq, Dlm and Lzd remain relatively low in pulmonary tuberculosis patients. However, higher resistance rates are observed in retreated patients, MDR/RR-TB patients and patients with prior exposure to these new agents. The resistance rate in drug-exposed patients is significantly higher than that in drug-naive patients, indicating that drug resistance monitoring should be intensified during the clinical application of new anti-tuberculosis drugs.

Key words: Tuberculosis, pulmonary, Microbial sensitivity tests, Drug resistance, bacterial, Antitubercular agents

中图分类号:

R521

苏达宏, 李晓丽, 杨斌, 施亦衡, 林威兵, 苗甜甜, 赵金凤, 马尚, 霍凤敏, 王桂荣. 肺结核患者对贝达喹啉、德拉马尼和利奈唑胺的耐药情况分析[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(10): 1523-1530. doi: 10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20260349

Su Dahong, Li Xiaoli, Yang Bin, Shi Yiheng, Lin Weibing, Miao Tiantian, Zhao Jinfeng, Ma Shang, Huo Fengmin, Wang Guirong. Analysis of drug resistance to bedaquiline, delamanid and linezolid in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis[J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2026, 48(10): 1523-1530. doi: 10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20260349

图/表 7

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

参考文献 29

[1]	Raviglione M C, Smith I M. XDR tuberculosis-implications for global public health[J]. N Engl J Med, 2007, 356(7): 656-659. doi:10.1056/NEJMp068273.
[2]	Hopewell P C, Pai M, Maher D, et al. International standards for tuberculosis care[J]. Lancet Infect Dis, 2006, 6(11): 710-725. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70628-4. pmid: 17067920
[3]	Trajman A, Campbell J R, Kunor T, et al. Tuberculosis[J]. Lancet, 2025, 405(10481): 850-866. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02479-6. pmid: 40057344
[4]	Guglielmetti L, Khan U, Velásquez G E, et al. Bedaquiline, delamanid, linezolid, and clofazimine for rifampicin-resistant and fluoroquinolone-resistant tuberculosis (endTB-Q): an open-label, multicentre, stratified, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial[J]. Lancet Respir Med, 2025, 13(9): 809-820. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(25)00194-8. pmid: 40683298
[5]	Nyang’wa B T, Berry C, Kazounis E, et al. Short oral regimens for pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (TB-PRACTECAL): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2B-3, multi-arm, multicentre, non-inferiority trial[J]. Lancet Respir Med, 2024, 12(2): 117-128. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00389-2.
[6]	Nyang’wa B T, Berry C, Kazounis E, et al. A 24-Week, All-Oral Regimen for Rifampin-Resistant Tuberculosis[J]. N Engl J Med, 2022, 387(25): 2331-2343. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2117166.
[7]	Orenstein E W, Basu S, Shah N S, et al. Treatment outcomes among patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Lancet Infect Dis, 2009, 9(3): 153-161. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70041-6. pmid: 19246019
[8]	Howell P, Stillo J, Reuter A, et al. The looming crisis of bedaquiline-resistant tuberculosis and a promising way forward[J]. Lancet Infect Dis, 2026, 26(8): e314-e318. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(26)00003-4.
[9]	Akbari Aghababa A, Nasiri M J, Pakzad P, et al. Delamanid and bedaquiline resistance patterns in Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Iran: A cross-sectional analysis[J]. New Microbes New Infect, 2024, 60-61: 101437. doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2024.101437.
[10]	中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. WS 288—2017 肺结核诊断[J]. 结核与肺部疾病杂志, 2024, 5(4): 376-378. doi:10.19983/j.issn.2096-8493.2024022.
[11]	赵雁林, 逄宇. 结核病实验室检验规程[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2015.
[12]	赵雁林, 陈明亭. 中国结核病防治工作技术指南[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2021.
[13]	中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. WS 196—2017 结核病分类[J]. 结核与肺部疾病杂志, 2024, 5(4): 379-380. doi:10.19983/j.issn.2096-8493.2024055.
[14]	汤同伟, 张正国, 邹辉, 等. 367例肺结核患者结核分枝杆菌耐药情况分析[J]. 临床肺科杂志, 2026, 31(3):412-416, 423. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-6663.2026.03.015.
[15]	中华人民共和国卫生部. 全国结核病耐药性基线调查报告(2007—2008年)[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社,2010:24-33.
[16]	严如庆, 苏国庆, 杨斌发, 等. 2015—2022年兰州市活动性肺结核患者耐药情况及影响因素分析[J]. 中国感染与化疗杂志, 2025, 25(6):631-640. doi:10.16718/j.1009-7708.2025.06.006.
[17]	高媛, 雷卉, 何璐, 等. 四川省高海拔地区结核分枝杆菌耐药及传播特征分析[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2025, 47(11):1459-1464. doi:10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20250217.
[18]	Li Q, Zhao G, Wu L, et al. Prevalence and patterns of drug resistance among pulmonary tuberculosis patients in Hangzhou, China[J]. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control, 2018, 7: 61. doi:10.1186/s13756-018-0348-7.
[19]	吴海丰, 翁敏华, 吴秋萍, 等. 海南地区2020株结核分枝杆菌耐药特征分析[J]. 海南医科大学学报, 2025, 31(9):652-658. doi:10.13210/j.cnki.jhmu.20240926.002.
[20]	宋宏, 王春蒲, 康宏云. 2016—2020年山西省耐药结核病流行情况分析[J]. 疾病监测, 2023, 38(8):924-928. doi:10.3784/jbjc.202209150400.
[21]	Conradie F, Diacon A H, Ngubane N, et al. Treatment of highly drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis[J]. N Engl J Med, 2020, 382(10): 893-902. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1901814.
[22]	Conradie F, Bagdasaryan T R, Borisov S, et al. Bedaquiline-pretomanid-linezolid regimens for drug-resistant tuberculosis[J]. N Engl J Med, 2022, 387(9): 810-823. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2119430.
[23]	Hu X, Wu Z, Lei J, et al. Prevalence of bedaquiline resistance in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2025, 25(1): 689. doi:10.1186/s12879-025-11067-2.
[24]	Pei S, Song Z, Yang W, et al. The catalogue of Mycobacterium tuberculosis mutations associated with drug resistance to 12 drugs in China from a nationwide survey: a genomic analysis[J]. Lancet Microbe, 2024, 5(11): 100899. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247(24)00131-9.
[25]	Chesov E, Chesov D, Maurer F P, et al. Emergence of bedaquiline resistance in a high tuberculosis burden country[J]. Eur Respir J, 2022, 59(3): 2100621. doi:10.1183/13993003.00621-2021.
[26]	Doctors Without Borders. Emerging resistance to new anti-tuberculosis drug bedaquiline warrants urgent action: Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Policy Brief[EB/OL].(2022-11-09)[2026-06-10]. https://msfsouthasia.org/emerging-resistance-to-new-anti-tuberculosis-drug-bedaquiline-warrants-urgent-action-medecins-sans-frontieres-msf-policy-brief/.
[27]	Nimmo C, Millard J, van Dorp L, et al. Population-level emergence of bedaquiline and clofazimine resistance-associated variants among patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis in southern Africa: a phenotypic and phylogenetic analysis[J]. Lancet Microbe, 2020, 1(4): e165-e174. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30031-8.
[28]	Conkle-Gutierrez D, Gorman B M, Thosar N, et al. Widespread loss-of-function mutations implicating preexisting resistance to new or repurposed anti-tuberculosis drugs[J]. Drug Resist Updat, 2024, 77: 101156. doi:10.1016/j.drup.2024.101156.
[29]	Derendinger B, Dippenaar A, de Vos M, et al. Bedaquiline resistance in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis in Cape Town, South Africa: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study[J]. Lancet Microbe, 2023, 4(12): e972-e982. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00172-6. pmid: 37931638

药品	敏感	中介	耐药	药品	敏感	中介	耐药
利福平	≤0.5	-	≥1	卡那霉素	-	-	≥4
异烟肼	-	-	≥0.2	阿米卡星	-	-	≥1
乙胺丁醇	≤2	4	≥8	环丝氨酸	-	-	≥16
德拉马尼	-	-	≥0.06	丙硫异烟胺	-	-	≥10
贝达喹啉	-	-	≥0.25	对氨基水杨酸	-	-	≥2
利福布汀	-	-	≥0.5	利奈唑胺	-	-	≥1
左氧氟沙星	-	-	≥1	吡嗪酰胺	≤50	-	≥100
莫西沙星	-	-	≥0.5	氯法齐明	-	-	≥0.25

项目	合计 (445例)	初治患者 (274例)	复治患者 (171例)
性别[例(构成比,%)]
男性	281(63.1)	165(60.2)	116(67.8)
女性	164(36.9)	109(39.8)	55(32.2)
年龄组[例(构成比,%)]
10~19岁	19(4.3)	13(4.7)	6(3.5)
20~29岁	40(9.0)	25(9.1)	15(8.8)
30~39岁	69(15.5)	44(16.1)	25(14.6)
40~49岁	48(10.8)	34(12.4)	14(8.2)
50~59岁	70(15.7)	37(13.5)	33(19.3)
60~69岁	95(21.4)	57(20.8)	38(22.2)
70~79岁	57(12.8)	32(11.7)	25(14.6)
80~89岁	41(9.2)	29(10.6)	12(7.0)
≥90岁	6(1.3)	3(1.1)	3(1.8)
居住地[例(构成比,%)]
东部	262(58.9)	183(66.8)	79(46.2)
中部	153(34.4)	73(26.6)	80(46.8)
西部	30(6.7)	18(6.6)	12(7.0)
基础疾病[例(患病率,%)]
低蛋白血症	86(19.3)	52(19.0)	34(19.9)
贫血	93(20.9)	52(19.0)	41(24.0)
高尿酸血症	99(22.2)	71(25.9)	28(16.4)
高血压	63(14.2)	40(14.6)	23(13.5)
糖尿病	115(25.8)	67(24.5)	48(28.1)
营养不良	37(8.3)	20(7.3)	17(9.9)
职业[例(构成比,%)]
农民	44(9.9)	22(8.0)	22(12.9)
退(离)休人员	30(6.7)	15(5.5)	15(8.8)
干部职员	4(0.9)	2(0.7)	2(1.2)
工人	7(1.6)	3(1.1)	4(2.3)
学生	15(3.4)	9(3.3)	6(3.5)
其他^a	345(77.5)	223(81.4)	122(71.3)

肺外结核	合计 (445例)	初治患者 (274例)	复治患者 (171例)
疾病种类[例(患病率,%)]
结核性脑膜脑炎	5(1.1)	2(0.7)	3(1.8)
脊椎结核	3(0.7)	1(0.4)	2(1.2)
淋巴结结核	3(0.7)	2(0.7)	1(0.6)
肾结核	1(0.2)	0(0.0)	1(0.6)
肠结核	2(0.4)	2(0.7)	0(0.0)
泌尿系结核	2(0.4)	2(0.7)	0(0.0)
结核性脊髓脊膜炎	1(0.2)	1(0.4)	0(0.0)
胸壁结核	1(0.2)	1(0.4)	0(0.0)
喉结核	3(0.7)	1(0.4)	2(1.2)
结核性腹膜炎	1(0.2)	1(0.4)	0(0.0)
皮肤结核	1(0.2)	1(0.4)	0(0.0)
涉及部位[例(比例,%)]
≥2个	106(23.8)	74(27.0)	32(18.7)
≥3个	10(2.2)	6(2.2)	4(2.3)

耐药类型	合计(445例)	初治患者(274例)	复治患者(171例)	χ²值	P值
总耐药	213(47.9)	109(39.8)	104(60.8)	18.674	<0.001
单耐药	42(9.4)	26(9.5)	16(9.4)	0.002	0.963
利福平耐药	134(30.1)	53(19.3)	81(47.4)	39.296	<0.001
耐多药	104(23.4)	40(14.6)	64(37.4)	30.639	<0.001
多耐药	40(9.0)	20(7.3)	20(11.7)	2.488	0.115
广泛耐药	17(3.8)	2(0.7)	15(8.8)	16.409	<0.001^a

药品	合计(445例)	初治患者(274例)	复治患者(171例)	χ²值	P值
异烟肼	141(31.7)	62(22.6)	79(46.2)	27.025	<0.001
利福平	134(30.1)	53(19.3)	81(47.4)	39.296	<0.001
莫西沙星	105(23.6)	44(16.1)	61(35.7)	22.469	<0.001
利福布汀	99(22.2)	40(14.6)	59(34.5)	24.115	<0.001
左氧氟沙星	98(22.0)	39(14.2)	59(34.5)	25.190	<0.001
吡嗪酰胺	81(18.1)	38(13.9)	43(25.1)	8.994	0.003
卡那霉素	32(7.2)	12(4.4)	20(11.7)	8.445	0.004
对氨基水杨酸	31(7.0)	13(4.7)	18(10.5)	5.431	0.020
氯法齐明	26(5.7)	12(4.4)	14(8.2)	3.109	0.078
阿米卡星	24(5.4)	9(3.3)	15(8.8)	6.213	0.013
德拉马尼	18(4.0)	6(2.2)	12(7.0)	6.323	0.012
利奈唑胺	17(3.8)	2(0.7)	15(8.8)	16.409	<0.001^a
乙胺丁醇	15(3.4)	7(2.6)	8(4.7)	1.458	0.227
贝达喹啉	12(2.7)	1(0.4)	11(6.4)	12.552	<0.001^a
丙硫异烟胺	9(2.0)	3(1.1)	6(3.4)	1.998	0.158^a
环丝氨酸	3(0.7)	1(0.4)	2(1.2)	0.171	0.679^a
任一耐药	213(47.9)	109(39.8)	104(60.8)	18.674	<0.001

肺结核患者对贝达喹啉、德拉马尼和利奈唑胺的耐药情况分析

Analysis of drug resistance to bedaquiline, delamanid and linezolid in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 29

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

药品	合计 (445例)	非利福平耐药患者 (311例)	耐多药患者 (134例)	χ²值	P值
贝达喹啉	12(2.7)	3(1.0)	9(6.7)	9.717	0.002^a
德拉马尼	18(4.0)	8(2.6)	10(7.5)	5.770	0.016
利奈唑胺	17(3.8)	1(0.3)	16(11.9)	31.318	<0.001^a
德拉马尼+贝达喹啉	8(1.8)	2(0.6)	6(4.5)	5.779	0.016^a
德拉马尼+利奈唑胺	7(1.6)	0(0.0)	7(5.2)	-	<0.001
贝达喹啉+利奈唑胺	5(1.1)	0(0.0)	5(3.7)	-	0.002
德拉马尼+贝达喹啉+利奈唑胺	4(0.9)	0(0.0)	4(3.0)	-	0.008

药品	用药者		未用药者		χ²值	P值
药品	例数	耐药[例(耐药率,%)]	例数	耐药[例(耐药率,%)]	χ²值	P值
贝达喹啉	95	8(8.4)	350	4(1.1)	12.438	<0.001^a
德拉马尼	77	7(9.1)	368	11(3.0)	6.108	0.013^a
利奈唑胺	80	11(13.8)	365	6(1.6)	26.174	<0.001

[1]	赵雨川, 陈燕梅, 张晨晨, 余美玲, 彭柯皓, 徐镠粤, 梁鸿迪, 陈珣珣. 基于结核分枝杆菌检测的数字PCR平台的性能比较及选型策略研究[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(9): 1331-1337.
[2]	李信达, 侯志丽, 欧阳兵, 杜亚东, 关丽英, 于红梅, 张海芹, 谢勇杰, 唐佩军, 肖雨, 张瑛, 陆宇. 抗结核固定剂量复合剂治疗药物敏感肺结核的安全性和有效性[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(8): 1158-1162.
[3]	郑苑均, 杨治安, 宋文郡, 范临夏, 雷丰丰. 一线抗结核药物致中毒性表皮坏死松解症一例[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(8): 1237-1240.
[4]	程文, 郭丽芳, 聂文娟. 治疗药物监测在个体化抗结核治疗中的应用、方法与实践[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(6): 882-891.
[5]	李静, 张阳奕, 杨景卉, 吴哲渊, 李宁迪, 郁晨蕾, 王莉莉, 沈旭辉, 江渊, 沈鑫. 上海市结核分枝杆菌利福平rpoB基因突变特征与耐药水平相关性的研究[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(4): 485-494.
[6]	林威兵, 施亦衡, 郭艳玲, 马尚, 杨斌, 龙嗣博, 郑迈克, 孙勇, 赵艳, 王桂荣. 241例淋巴结结核耐药情况分析[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(2): 247-255.
[7]	王雪钰, 初乃惠, 聂文娟. 西他沙星抗结核分枝杆菌的研究进展[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(2): 299-303.
[8]	王仲建, 王允吉, 牛玉兰, 黄艳, 孔君, 曹辉, 焦放, 张侠, 张向荣. 普托马尼在B-Pa-L/M方案中治疗耐药肺结核的生理药代动力学模型建立与应用[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(10): 1538-1551.
[9]	温淑芳, 任卫聪, 尚媛媛, 苏碧仪, 李浩然, 逄宇, 刘毅. 91株抗酸染色涂片阴性脓肿分枝杆菌复合群临床分离株亚种分布及耐药谱差异分析[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(10): 1579-1589.
[10]	刘书亚, 杨丹, 初乃惠, 阮云洲, 任敬娟, 王倪, 成诗明. 耐多药/利福平耐药结核病短程治疗方案的研究进展[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(10): 1635-1644.
[11]	石文卉, 聂文娟, 初乃惠. 耐药结核病治疗药物血药浓度监测的研究进展[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(10): 1645-1658.
[12]	付娅楠, 杨小涛, 刘晓梅, 申阿东. 儿童药物敏感肺结核治疗方案的研究进展[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2026, 48(1): 148-152.
[13]	王潇, 李同心, 廖传玉, 王鹏森, 高雯琬, 王菲菲, 曾大川. 2020—2023年重庆市肺结核和糖尿病共病患者表型耐药特征与分子耐药位点突变分析[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2025, 47(S2): 11-16.
[14]	田琦, 李春杨. 抗病毒联合抗结核药物治疗艾滋病合并肺结核的临床疗效观察[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2025, 47(S1): 9-11.
[15]	汤玲玲, 陈丹萍, 李郁如, 江华, 黄乐, 苏丽敏. 耐药肺结核患者家庭功能现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2025, 47(8): 999-1006.