{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03176043557168784, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015426497277676952, 'mean_word_length': 6.025477707006369, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The differential effect of clarithromycin and azithromycin on induction of macrolide resistance in Mycobacterium Abscessus.

Aim: Antibiotic resistance in Mycobacterium abscessus renders treatment poorly effective. Despite erm(41)-gene-mediated macrolide resistance, treatment with azithromycin or clarithromycin is recommended. It is contested whether macrolides differ in erm(41) induction. We determine whether this is the case. Methods: M. abscessus CIP104536 was used. Minimum inhibitory concentrations of clarithromycin and azithromycin were determined. Time-kill kinetics of M. abscessus exposed to azithromycin or clarithromycin were performed and RNA was isolated at predetermined intervals for erm(41) quantification. Results: Minimum inhibitory concentrations increased >30-fold. Time-kill kinetics showed a temporary bacteriostatic effect, abrogated by induced resistance. Erm(41) expression was increased following exposure to either macrolide for 7 days. Conclusion: Both macrolides induce resistance similarly, and this should not be an argument in choosing either macrolide for therapy.