First nationwide antimicrobial susceptibility surveillance for Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Brazil, 2015-16.

Objectives: Gonorrhoea and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Neisseria gonorrhoeae are major public health concerns globally. Enhanced AMR surveillance for gonococci is essential worldwide; however, recent quality-assured gonococcal AMR surveillance in Latin America, including Brazil, has been limited. Our aims were to (i) establish the first nationwide gonococcal AMR surveillance, quality assured according to WHO standards, in Brazil, and (ii) describe the antimicrobial susceptibility of clinical gonococcal isolates collected from 2015 to 2016 in all five main regions (seven sentinel sites) of Brazil. Methods: Gonococcal isolates from 550 men with urethral discharge were examined for susceptibility to ceftriaxone, cefixime, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, benzylpenicillin and tetracycline using the agar dilution method, according to CLSI recommendations and quality assured according to WHO standards. Results: The levels of resistance (intermediate susceptibility) to tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, benzylpenicillin and azithromycin were 61.6% (34.2%), 55.6% (0.5%), 37.1% (60.4%) and 6.9% (8.9%), respectively. All isolates were susceptible to ceftriaxone and cefixime using the US CLSI breakpoints. However, according to the European EUCAST cefixime breakpoints, 0.2% (n = 1) of isolates were cefixime resistant and 6.9% (n = 38) of isolates had a cefixime MIC bordering on resistance. Conclusions: This study describes the first national surveillance of gonococcal AMR in Brazil, which was quality assured according to WHO standards. The high resistance to ciprofloxacin (which promptly informed a revision of the Brazilian sexually transmitted infection treatment guideline), emerging resistance to azithromycin and decreasing susceptibility to extended-spectrum cephalosporins necessitate continuous surveillance of gonococcal AMR and ideally treatment failures, and increased awareness when prescribing treatment in Brazil.

PCR-RFLP assay as an option for primary HPV test.

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is an essential factor of cervical cancer. This study evaluated the analytical performance of restriction fragment length polymorphism polymerase chain reaction (PCR-RFLP) assay compared to PapilloCheck® microarray to identify human papilloma virus (HPV) in cervical cells. Three hundred and twenty-five women were analyzed. One sample was used for conventional cytology and another sample was collected using BD SurePath™ kit for HPV tests. Eighty samples (24.6%) were positive for HPV gene by PCR-Multiplex and were then submitted to PCR-RFLP and PapilloCheck® microarray. There was a genotyping agreement in 71.25% (57/80) on at least one HPV type between PCR-RFLP and PapilloCheck® microarray. In 22 samples (27.5%), the results were discordant and those samples were additionally analyzed by DNA sequencing. HPV 16 was the most prevalent HPV type found in both methods, followed by HPVs 53, 68, 18, 39, and 66 using PCR-RFLP analysis, and HPVs 39, 53, 68, 56, 31, and 66 using PapilloCheck® microarray. In the present study, a perfect agreement using Cohen's kappa (κ) was found in HPV 33 and 58 (κ=1), very good for HPV 51, and good for types 16, 18, 53, 59, 66, 68, 70, and 73. PCR-RFLP analysis identified only 25% (20/80) HPV coinfection, and PapilloCheck® microarray found 62.5% (50/80). Our Cohen's kappa results indicate that our in-house HPV genotyping testing (PCR-RFLP analysis) could be applied as a primary HPV test screening, especially in low income countries. If multiple HPV types are found in this primary test, a more descriptive test, such as PapilloCheck® microarray, could be performed.

PCR-RFLP assay as an option for primary HPV test

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is an essential factor of cervical cancer. This study evaluated the analytical performance of restriction fragment length polymorphism polymerase chain reaction (PCR-RFLP) assay compared to PapilloCheck® microarray to identify human papilloma virus (HPV) in cervical cells. Three hundred and twenty-five women were analyzed. One sample was used for conventional cytology and another sample was collected using BD SurePath™ kit for HPV tests. Eighty samples (24.6%) were positive for HPV gene by PCR-Multiplex and were then submitted to PCR-RFLP and PapilloCheck® microarray. There was a genotyping agreement in 71.25% (57/80) on at least one HPV type between PCR-RFLP and PapilloCheck® microarray. In 22 samples (27.5%), the results were discordant and those samples were additionally analyzed by DNA sequencing. HPV 16 was the most prevalent HPV type found in both methods, followed by HPVs 53, 68, 18, 39, and 66 using PCR-RFLP analysis, and HPVs 39, 53, 68, 56, 31, and 66 using PapilloCheck® microarray. In the present study, a perfect agreement using Cohen's kappa (κ) was found in HPV 33 and 58 (κ=1), very good for HPV 51, and good for types 16, 18, 53, 59, 66, 68, 70, and 73. PCR-RFLP analysis identified only 25% (20/80) HPV coinfection, and PapilloCheck® microarray found 62.5% (50/80). Our Cohen's kappa results indicate that our in-house HPV genotyping testing (PCR-RFLP analysis) could be applied as a primary HPV test screening, especially in low income countries. If multiple HPV types are found in this primary test, a more descriptive test, such as PapilloCheck® microarray, could be performed.