Pyrazinamide resistance in rifampicin discordant tuberculosis.

INTRODUCTION: Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains with phenotypically susceptible rpoB mutations (rifampicin discordant) have emerged following implementation of rapid molecular drug resistance testing for tuberculosis. Whilst rifampicin resistance is known to be associated with resistance to other rifamycins (rifapentine and rifabutin) as well as isoniazid and pyrazinamide, rifampicin discordant strains have shown high rates of susceptibility to isoniazid and rifabutin. However, pyrazinamide susceptibly testing results have not been reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated pyrazinamide resistance in 80 rifampicin discordant and 25 rifampicin and isoniazid susceptible isolates from KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa using Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube method and sequencing of the pncA. We also compared susceptibility of pyrazinamide with that of isoniazid. RESULTS: Pyrazinamide resistance was found in 6/80 (7.5%) rifampicin discordant isolates. All pyrazinamide resistant isolates were also resistant to isoniazid and pyrazinamide resistance was found to be associated with isoniazid resistance. No pyrazinamide resistance was found among the isoniazid susceptible isolates. CONCLUSION: Given the low prevalence of pyrazinamide resistance in rifampicin discordant TB, this anti-TB drug still has a significant role in the treatment of these patients. Performing pyrazinamide susceptibility testing remains a challenge, our findings show that isoniazid susceptible isolates are unlikely to be resistant to pyrazinamide among the discordant TB isolates.

Empirical antimicrobial therapy for probable v. directed therapy for possible ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically injured patients.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has recently been classified as possible or probable. Although direct attributable mortality has been difficult to prove, delay in instituting appropriate therapy has been reported to increase morbidity and mortality. Recent literature suggests that in possible VAP, instituting directed therapy while awaiting microbiological culture does not prejudice outcome compared with best-guess empirical therapy. OBJECTIVES: To ascertain outcomes of directed v. empirical therapy in possible and probable VAP, respectively. METHODS: Endotracheal aspirates were obtained from patients with suspected VAP. Those considered to have possible VAP were given directed therapy following culture results, whereas patients with more convincing evidence of VAP were classed as having probable VAP and commenced on empirical antimicrobials based on microbiological surveillance. RESULTS: Pneumonia was suspected in 106 (36.8%) of 288 patients admitted during January - December 2014. Of these, 13 did not fulfil the criteria for VAP. Of the remaining 93 (32.2%), 31 (33.3%) were considered to have probable and 62 (66.7%) possible VAP. The former were commenced on empirical antimicrobials, with 28 (90.3%) receiving appropriate therapy. Of those with possible VAP, 34 (54.8%) were given directed therapy and in 28 (45.2%) no antimicrobials were prescribed. Of the latter, 24 recovered without antimicrobials and 4 died, 3 from severe traumatic brain injury and 1 due to overwhelming intra-abdominal sepsis. No death was directly attributable to failure to treat VAP. No significant difference in mortality was found between the 34 patients with possible VAP who were commenced on directed therapy and the 31 with probable VAP who were commenced on empirical antimicrobials (p=0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Delaying antimicrobial therapy for VAP where clinical doubt exists does not adversely affect outcome. Furthermore, this policy limits the use of antimicrobials in patients with possible VAP following improvement in their clinical condition despite no therapy.