Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Clinical round-up
  1. Sophie Herbert1,
  2. Emily Chung2
  1. 1 Genitourinary Medicine/HIV, Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Northamptonshire, UK
  2. 2 Sexual Health and HIV, Mortimer Market Centre, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sophie Herbert, GUM/HIV, Mortimer Market Centre, London WC1E 6JB, UK; sophieherbert{at}nhs.net

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Whole genome sequencing to predict gonorrhoea sensitivities

This timely paper from Eyre et al 1 explores whether whole genome sequencing (WGS) can predict for antibiotic resistance. WGS was used to identify potential resistance determinants for nearly 700 Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates taken as part of national surveillance programmes in the UK, Canada and the USA. Phenotypes for cefixime, penicillin, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin and tetracycline were determined. Any genetic predictors of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) value were identified and included the majority of previously reported resistance. Fifty-three per cent of MIC values were predicted to the nearest doubling dilution, 93% within +1 doubling dilutions, and 98% within +2 doubling dilutions, typical variation is +1 doubling dilution and or greater. EUCAST MICs were applied. The overall very major error rate (phenotypically resistant, WGS prediction susceptible) was 21/1577 (1.3%, 95% CI 0.8% to 2.0%) and the major error rate (phenotypically susceptible, WGS prediction resistant) was 20/1186 (1.7%, 95% CI 1.0% to 2.6%). The MIC prediction performance was similar across each of the antibiotics tested.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the context of HIV

Bigna et al 2 seek to establish …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors SH wrote the manuscript. EC reviewed the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.