Analysis of drug resistance among tuberculosis patients in Hebei Province in 2020

doi:10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20210638

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective: To understand the epidemic situation and trend of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in Hebei Province,providing scientific evidence for formulating suitable strategies for MDR-TB prevention and control for the province. Methods: A total of 14 surveillance counties (districts) in Hebei province were selected as drug resistance surveillance sites by simple random sampling.A total of 424 culture positive TB patients were selected from those surveillance sites in 2020. Isoniazid (INH), rifampicin (RFP), ethambutol (EMB), streptomycin (Sm), kanamycin (Km), ofloxacin (Ofx), capreomycin (Cm), prothioisinamide (Pto),and sodium P-aminosalicylate (PAS) were tested for drug resistance with the proportional drug susceptibility test. Results: (1) Overall drug resistance: rate of resistance to INH was the highest in newly treated patients (9.19% (35/381)), rate of resistance to RFP was the highest in re-treated patients (13.95% (6/43)). Overall INH resistance rate was (9.43% (40/424)).(2) Monoresistance: the rate of monoresistance to RFP was the highest in newly treated patients, re-treated patients and all patients (1.84% (7/381), 6.98% (3/43), 2.36% (10/424), respectively). (3) Polydrug resistance: the INH+Sm resistance rate was the highest in newly treated patients (0.79% (3/381)), INH+Sm and INH+EMB+Sm resistance rate were the highest in retreated patients (both were 2.33% (1/43)), and INH+Sm resistance rate was the highest among all patients (0.94% (4/424)). (4) Multidrug resistance:INH+RFP and INH+RFP+Km+Ofx resistance rate were the highest in newly treated patients (both were 1.31% (5/381)), and INH+RFP+EMB resistance rate was the highest in retreated patients (4.65% (2/43)). The INH+RFP and INH+RFP+Km+Ofx resistance rates were the highest (both were 1.18% (5/424)) among all patients.The overall drug resistance rate was 34.20% (145/424), 33.07% (126/381) in newly treated patients and 44.19% (19/43) in retreated patients.The overall rate of multidrug resistance was 5.42% (23/424), 5.25% (20/381) in newly treated patients and 6.98% (3/43) in retreated patients. Conclusion: The situation of tuberculosis resistance in Hebei is serious in 2020.We should pay more attention on standardized use of first-line and second-line drugs, especially for Km and Ofx, to reduce drug resistance rate.

Key words: Tuberculosis, Drug resistance, Epidemiologic studies

CLC Number:

R521
R97

XIE Bing-jie, JIN Fei, ZHANG Jun-li, XU Hua, CHEN Hai-feng, ZHANG Hui-min. Analysis of drug resistance among tuberculosis patients in Hebei Province in 2020[J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2022, 44(4): 403-408. doi: 10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20210638

Figures/Tables 5

References 16

[1]	World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2021. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021.
[2]	陈翠姬, 岑贞业. 耐药结核病防治现状及策略研究. 河南预防医学杂志, 2018, 29(7):495. doi: 10.13515/j.cnki.hnjpm.1006-8414.2018.07.005.
[3]	刘剑君, 赵雁林, 陈明亭, 等. 中国结核病防治工作技术指南. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2021: 173.
[4]	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). 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2010:25-30.
[5]	易俊莉, 杨新宇, 陈昊, 等. 1156株结核分枝杆菌临床分离株耐药情况分析. 中国防痨杂志, 2021, 43(7):677-681. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2021.07.007.
[6]	吴智龙, 钟倩红, 郭翠弟. 广东省佛山市肺结核患者耐药情况分析. 中国防痨杂志, 2016, 38(7):597-600. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2016.07.017.
[7]	郑超峰. 2007—2016 年漯河市结核病流行趋势分析. 河南预防医学杂志, 2017, 28(8):624-627. doi: 10.13515/j.cnki.hnjpm.1006-8414.2017.08.023.
[8]	陈伟, 杜昕, 夏愔愔, 等. 2001—2010 年传染监测系统报告肺结核患者的特征分析. 结核病与肺部健康杂志, 2013, 2(4):243-248. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-3755.2013.04.006.
[9]	汪敏, 李静, 张阳奕, 等. 2013—2017 年上海市结核病耐药状况及影响因素分析. 中国防痨杂志, 2019, 41(12):1269-1276. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2019.12.007.
[10]	Nsofor CA, Jiang Q, Wu J, et al. Transmission is a Noticeable Cause of Resistance Among Treated Tuberculosis Patients in Shanghai, China. Sci Rep, 2017, 7(1):7691. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08061-3. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08061-3 URL
[11]	李香社, 祝玉芬. 我国结核分枝杆菌耐药现状及研究进展. 临床误诊误治, 2017, 30(7):114. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-3429.2017.07.035.
[12]	黄申. 2006—2015年曲靖市肺结核流行特征及生态学影响因素分析. 昆明:昆明医科大学, 2018:29-32.
[13]	熊丽芬, 来明月, 杨茜茹, 等. 2005—2018年云南省西双版纳州肺结核流行特征分析. 结核与肺部疾病杂志, 2020, 1(2):165-169. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-8493.2020.02.015.
[14]	杨勇文, 侯杰, 梁新杰. 2009—2018年梅县区居民肺结核流行病学特征分析. 华南预防医学, 2020, 46(6):657-659,663. doi: 10.12183/j.scjpm.2020.0657.
[15]	Zhao X, Yuan L, Feng L, et al. Association of dietary intake and lifestyle pattern with mild cognitive impairment in the elderly. J Nutr Health Aging, 2015, 19(2):164-168. doi: 10.1007/s12603-014-0524-2. doi: 10.1007/s12603-014-0524-2 URL pmid: 25651441
[16]	刘桑, 吕康言, 孟皎, 等. 360例耐多药肺结核患者耐药情况分析. 中国防痨杂志, 2017, 39(8):878-882. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2017.08.017.

耐药类型	初治患者(381例)		复治患者(43例)		合计(424例)		χ²值	P值
耐药类型	例数	耐药率(%)	例数	耐药率(%)	例数	耐药率(%)	χ²值	P值
总耐药
INH	35	9.19	5	11.63	40	9.43	-^a	0.582
RFP	30	7.87	6	13.95	36	8.49	1.838	0.241
EMB	8	2.10	3	6.98	11	2.59	-^a	0.090
Sm	16	4.20	2	4.65	18	4.25	-^a	0.703
Ofx	8	2.10	0	0.00	8	1.89	-^a	1.000
Km	5	1.31	0	0.00	5	1.18	-^a	1.000
Cm	10	2.62	2	4.65	12	2.83	-^a	0.348
Pto	8	2.10	1	2.33	9	2.12	-^a	1.000
PAS	6	1.57	0	0.00	6	1.42	-^a	1.000
单耐药
INH	6	1.57	0	0.00	6	1.42	-^a	1.000
RFP	7	1.84	3	6.98	10	2.36	-^a	0.070
EMB	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
Sm	6	1.57	0	0.00	6	1.42	-^a	1.000
Ofx	2	0.52	0	0.00	2	0.47	-^a	1.000
Km	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
Cm	4	1.05	1	2.33	5	1.18	-^a	0.416
Pto	1	0.26	0	0.00	1	0.24	-^a	1.000
PAS	1	0.26	0	0.00	1	0.24	-^a	1.000
多耐药
INH+EMB	2	0.52	0	0.00	2	0.47	-^a	1.000
INH+Sm	3	0.79	1	2.33	4	0.94	-^a	0.355
INH+Sm+PAS	1	0.26	0	0.00	1	0.24	-^a	1.000
RFP+Cm+PAS	1	0.26	0	0.00	1	0.24	-^a	1.000
RFP+Cm+Pto	1	0.26	0	0.00	1	0.24	-^a	1.000
INH+Sm+Pto	1	0.26	0	0.00	1	0.24	-^a	1.000
INH+EMB+Sm	1	0.26	1	2.33	2	0.47	3.503	0.193
RFP+Ofx+Pto	1	0.26	0	0.00	1	0.24	-^a	1.000
INH+Sm+Cm+PAS	1	0.26	0	0.00	1	0.24	-^a	1.000
耐多药
INH+RFP	5	1.31	0	0.00	5	1.18	-^a	1.000
INH+RFP+EMB	2	0.52	2	4.65	4	0.94	-^a	0.053
INH+RFP+Cm+Pto	3	0.79	1	2.33	4	0.94	-^a	0.349
INH+RFP+EMB+Sm	3	0.79	0	0.00	3	0.71	-^a	1.000
INH+RFP+Km+Ofx	5	1.31	0	0.00	5	1.18	-^a	1.000
INH+RFP+Pto+PAS	2	0.52	0	0.00	2	0.47	-^a	1.000

不同特征	初治患者(381例)			复治患者(43例)			合计(424例)			χ²值	P值
不同特征	例数	总耐药数	总耐药率(%)	例数	总耐药数	总耐药率(%)	例数	总耐药数	总耐药率(%)	χ²值	P值
性别										0.453	0.289
男	270	85	31.48	34	16	47.06	304	101	33.22
女	111	41	36.94	9	3	33.33	120	44	36.67
年龄(岁)										5.044	0.169
0~19	17	3	17.65	1	0	0.00	18	3	16.67
20~39	125	46	36.80	13	9	69.23	138	55	39.86
40~59	101	33	32.67	10	5	50.00	111	38	34.23
60~93	138	44	31.88	19	5	26.32	157	49	31.21
地区										0.014	0.906
城镇	86	28	32.56	12	6	50.00	98	34	34.69
农村	295	98	33.22	31	13	41.94	326	111	34.05
合计	381	126	33.07	43	19	44.19	424	145	34.20	2.121	0.145

不同特征	初治患者(381例)			复治患者(43例)			合计(424例)			χ²值	P值
不同特征	例数	单耐药数	单耐药率(%)	例数	单耐药数	单耐药率(%)	例数	单耐药数	单耐药率(%)	χ²值	P值
性别										1.319	0.251
男	270	22	8.15	34	3	8.82	304	25	8.22
女	111	5	4.50	9	1	11.11	120	6	5.00
年龄(岁)										-^a	0.167
0~19	17	1	5.88	1	0	0.00	18	1	5.56
20~39	125	6	4.80	13	1	7.69	138	7	5.07
40~59	101	7	6.93	10	3	30.00	111	10	9.01
60~93	138	13	9.42	19	0	0.00	157	13	8.28
地区										0.659	0.417
城镇	86	7	8.14	12	2	16.67	98	9	9.18
农村	295	20	6.78	31	2	6.45	326	22	6.75
合计	381	27	7.09	43	4	9.30	424	31	7.31	0.280	0.597

不同特征	初治患者(381例)			复治患者(43例)			合计(424例)			χ²值	P值
不同特征	例数	多耐药数	多耐药率(%)	例数	多耐药数	多耐药率(%)	例数	多耐药数	多耐药率(%)	χ²值	P值
性别										0.337	0.562
男	270	10	3.70	34	1	2.94	304	11	3.62
女	111	2	1.80	9	1	11.11	120	3	2.50
年龄(岁)										3.536	0.060
0~19	17	0	0.00	1	0	0.00	18	0	0.00
20~39	125	8	6.40	13	0	0.00	138	8	5.80
40~59	101	4	3.96	10	1	10.00	111	5	4.50
60~93	138	0	0.00	19	1	5.26	157	1	0.64
地区										1.294	0.255
城镇	86	5	5.81	12	0	0.00	98	5	5.10
农村	295	7	2.37	31	2	6.45	326	9	2.76
合计	381	12	3.15	43	2	4.65	424	14	3.30	-^a	0.643

不同特征	初治患者(381例)			复治患者(43例)			合计(424例)			χ²值	P值
不同特征	例数	耐多药数	耐多药率(%)	例数	耐多药数	耐多药率(%)	例数	耐多药数	耐多药率(%)	χ²值	P值
性别										3.421	0.064
男	270	15	5.56	34	2	5.88	304	17	5.59
女	111	5	4.50	9	1	11.11	120	6	5.00
年龄(岁)										-^a	0.806
0~19	17	1	5.88	1	0	0.00	18	1	5.56
20~39	125	7	5.60	13	1	7.69	138	8	5.80
40~59	101	3	2.97	10	1	10.00	111	4	3.64
60~93	138	9	6.52	19	1	5.26	157	10	6.37
地区										0.734	0.392
城镇	86	6	6.98	12	1	8.33	98	7	7.14
农村	295	14	4.75	31	2	6.45	326	16	4.91
合计	381	20	5.25	43	3	6.98	424	23	5.42	-^a	0.718