Abstract Background To assess the prevalence and epidemic pattern of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China during 2012–2022. Methods All the tuberculosis cases undergoing drug susceptibility testing during 2012–2022 were included in this study. De-identified information was extracted from the electronic database Tuberculosis Information Management System for analysis of drug resistance prevalence in Hangzhou and ecdemic multidrug-resistant tuberculosis which originated from other regions. Chi-square tests were used to compare drug resistance rates between different groups, while Chi-square tests for trend were used to evaluate the change of drug resistance rates over the years of 2012–2022. The sources and destinations of ecdemic multidrug-resistant tuberculosis were illustrated using a Sankey diagram. Results Of 21,127 cases included in this study, 1119 (5.3%) were multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. A significant decline in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis rates was observed during 2012–2022. There was a significant difference in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis rates among immigrant population and local residents in Hangzhou City. Of 1119 multidrug-resistant tuberculosis cases, 515(46%) were ecdemic multidrug-resistant tuberculosis cases, of which 277(53.8%) were from other parts of Zhejiang Province and 238(46.2%) were from other provinces in China. Anhui, Jiangxi and Sichuan were among top three provinces which were the source of ecdemic multidrug-resistant tuberculosis cases. Three districts including Xiaoshan, Shangcheng and Linping districts had the most cases in Hangzhou. The proportion of ecdemic multidrug-resistant tuberculosis cases in Binjiang, Xiaoshan, Qiantang and Linping districtalso exceeded 30% of total cases. Conclusions Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis prevalence has been declining in Hangzhou. Migrant population contributed to a significant potion of cases in Hangzhou. Interventions should be tailed to local and migrant residents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: