Cross-sectional study reveals higher prevalence of drug resistance genes in male tuberculosis patients, highlighting the need for gender-tailored molecular surveillance.
Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major global public health challenge, complicated by the emergence of drug-resistant strains. Molecular detection of resistance-associated genes has become essential for early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Gender-related differences in the molecular epidemiology of drug resistance remain inadequately explored. Aim: To evaluate gender-based differences in the distribution of resistance-associated genetic markers ( rpoB , katG , inhA , gyrA , gyr , rrs , and eis ) among TB patients. Methods: A cross-sectional molecular study was conducted among 317 bacteriologically confirmed TB patients. Genomic DNA extracted from clinical specimens was analyzed using line probe assay to detect wild-type (WT) and mutant probes associated with resistance to rifampicin, isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, and injectable drugs. Gender-wise comparisons were performed using the Chi-square test. Results: Of the 317 patients, 209 (66.0%) were males, and 108 (34.0%) were females. Male patients showed significantly a higher prevalence of rpoB (89.4% vs. 80.6%), katG (85.6% vs. 75.0%), inhA (87.5% vs. 77.8%), gyrA (86.6% vs. 71.0%), rrs (86.6% vs. 73.8%), and eis (86.6% vs. 75.7%) genes ( P < 0.05). Several WT probes were significantly more frequent in males, while selected mutations such as rpoB MUT3, katG MUT1, gyrA MUT3A, and gyrA MUT3C demonstrated significant gender associations. Conclusion: Distinct gender-based differences exist in the molecular distribution of TB drug resistance markers, with males exhibiting a higher prevalence of several resistance-associated genes. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating gender perspectives into TB molecular surveillance and control strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Naik et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: