Evidence Hub

Mycoplasma hominis infections in solid organ transplant recipients: Clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, and comparison of phenotypic and genotypic susceptibility profiles

Chang SY, Price TK, Beaird OE, Gaynor PT, Schaenman JM, Carlson ME, Kubak BM, Yang S et al.

Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society, 2022

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mycoplasma hominis can cause significant infections after solid organ transplantation (SOT). Treatment should be guided by susceptibility testing, but conventional lab methods are laborious with prolonged turnaround time (TAT). This case series compares the phenotypic and genotypic susceptibility profiles of M. hominis isolates identified from SOT patients.

METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study evaluating SOT recipients with confirmed M. hominis infections. Patients' demographic, clinical, microbiological, and radiographic data were collected. Culture of M. hominis isolates was performed according to current Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Phenotypic susceptibility testing was performed by University of Alabama Diagnostic Mycoplasma Laboratory. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed followed by bioinformatic analysis of known genetic determinants of resistance.

RESULTS: Seven SOT recipients with M. hominis infections were identified. Two out of seven (28.5%) patients had resistance detected by phenotypic susceptibility testing (Case 5 to levofloxacin and Case 7 to tetracycline). Genomic analyses confirmed the presence of mutations in the parC and parE topoisomerase genes at positions conferring to fluoroquinolone resistance in the isolate from Case 5, while the tetracycline-resistant isolate from Case 7 harbored the tetM gene. The median TAT from the date of specimen collection was 24 days for phenotypic susceptibility…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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