P-1688. Prevalence of Mycoplasma hominis, Ureaplasma parvum, and Ureaplasma urealyticum along with antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Mycoplasma hominis in vaginal samples from pregnant women in Japan

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Information on Mycoplasma hominis resistance is currently limited in Japan. Therefore, this study investigated the antimicrobial susceptibility of M. hominis in clinical samples, along with the prevalence of M. hominis and Ureaplasma spp. in vaginal samples. Methods Vaginal samples from pregnant Japanese women were analyzed for the presence of M. hominis, U. parvum, and U. urealyticum using conventional polymerase chain reaction. The susceptibility profile of 35 M. hominis strains stored at the Hiroshima University Hospital was evaluated using the MYCOFAST RevolutioN ATB+ kit, E-test, Eiken dry plates with urea-arginine LYO2 broth named the LYO2 broth method. Results Out of 160 total vaginal samples, the prevalence of M. hominis, U. parvum and U. urealyticum was 4.4%, 28%, and 10%, respectively. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing using the MYCOFAST RevolutioN ATB+ kit revealed resistance rates of 17%, 11%, 0%, and 2.9% for levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, tetracycline, and clindamycin, respectively. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing results using the LYO2 broth method were consistent with the MYCOFAST RevolutioN ATB+ kit for levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, minocycline, and clindamycin. In addition, the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) determined using E-test were similar to those of the MYCOFAST RevolutioN ATB+ kit. Conclusion M. hominis, which is resistant to fluoroquinolones and clindamycin, was detected in clinical samples in Japan. In addition, we found that the LYO2 broth method was comparable to the MYCOFAST RevolutioN ATB+ kit in determining MICs. Therefore, the LYO2 broth method may be a reliable and convenient tool for determining the MICs of M. hominis in Japanese clinical settings. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.