Evidence Hub

Global trends in the proportion of macrolide-resistant Mycobacterium Species: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ghazi Chaki SS, Pirsoltan SB, Beig M, Navidifar T, Parvizi E, Mofid M, Golab N, Sholeh M

PloS one, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Background: Macrolide resistance in Mycobacterium species is an emerging global problem, complicating treating non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Understanding global resistance patterns is essential to improve treatment strategies and reduce morbidity and mortality.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate macrolide resistance prevalence, distribution, and trends among Mycobacterium species in different world regions.

Methods: A comprehensive search of Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE (2015-2023) assessed study quality using JBI guidelines. Resistance proportions were calculated with a random-effects model, and additional meta-regression and subgroup analyses explored variations and trends. Statistical analyses were conducted using R and the metafor package.

Results: Out of 5,718 records, 41 studies across 17 countries were included. Azithromycin resistance was reported in 17 reports (3 Studies), with 156 resistant isolates among 715 tested, yielding a pooled rate of 29.0% (95% CI: 19.5-40.7%). Clarithromycin resistance, assessed in 76 reports (40 Studies), included 1,071 resistant isolates among 3,923 tested, with a pooled rate of 30.5% (95% CI: 23.7-38.2%). Erythromycin resistance was reported in 17 reports (3 Studies), with 350 resistant isolates among 752 tested, giving a pooled rate of 50.3% (95% CI: 37.5-62.9%). Meta-regression revealed a significant upward trend in azithromycin resistance over time (r = 0.558, p = 0.005).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free