Quantifying antibiotic impact on within-patient dynamics of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase resistance.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Anal Canal
/ microbiology
Anti-Bacterial Agents
/ adverse effects
Bacterial Load
Bacterial Proteins
/ genetics
Enterobacteriaceae
/ drug effects
Europe
Female
Gastrointestinal Microbiome
/ drug effects
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Theoretical
Prospective Studies
Ribotyping
Time Factors
Young Adult
beta-Lactam Resistance
/ genetics
beta-Lactamases
/ genetics
antibiotic resistance
epidemiology
extended-spectrum beta-lactamase
global health
gut microbiota
human
infectious disease
microbiology
resistance carriage
state-space model
within-host dynamics
Journal
eLife
ISSN: 2050-084X
Titre abrégé: Elife
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101579614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 05 2020
07 05 2020
Historique:
received:
12
06
2019
accepted:
22
03
2020
entrez:
8
5
2020
pubmed:
8
5
2020
medline:
16
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Antibiotic-induced perturbation of the human gut flora is expected to play an important role in mediating the relationship between antibiotic use and the population prevalence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, but little is known about how antibiotics affect within-host resistance dynamics. Here we develop a data-driven model of the within-host dynamics of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing Bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are a growing global health crisis. One type of antibiotic resistance arises when certain bacteria that can produce enzymes called extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (or ESBLs for short) become more common in the gut. These enzymes stop important antibiotics, like penicillin, from working. However, exactly which antibiotics and treatment durations contribute to the emergence of this antibiotic resistance remain unknown. Now, Niehus et al. find certain antibiotics that are associated with an increase in the number of gut bacteria carrying antibiotic resistance genes for ESBL enzymes. First, rectal swabs collected from 133 patients from three European hospitals were analysed to measure the total gut bacteria and the number of genes for ESBL enzymes. These samples had been collected at several time points including when the patient was first admitted to hospital, then every two to three days during their stay, and finally when they were discharged. Combining the analysis of the samples with details of the patients’ charts showed that treatment with two antibiotics: cefuroxime and ceftriaxone, was linked to an increase in ESBL genes in the gut bacteria. Other antibiotics – namely, meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam and oral ciprofloxacin – were associated with a decrease in the number of bacteria with ESBL genes. Niehus et al. then performed further analysis to see if different treatment regimens affected how long patients were carrying gut bacteria with ESBL genes. This predicted that a longer course of meropenem, 14 days rather than 5 days, would shorten the length of time patients carried ESBL-resistant bacteria in their guts by 70%, although this effect will likely depend on the location of the hospital and the local prevalence of other types of antibiotic resistance. This analysis reveals new details about how antibiotic treatment can affect ESBL resistance genes. More studies are needed to understand how antibiotics affect other antibiotic resistance genes and how resistant bacteria spread. This will help scientists understand how much specific antibiotic regimens contribute to antibiotic resistance. It may also help scientists develop new antibiotic treatment strategies that reduce antibiotic resistance.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are a growing global health crisis. One type of antibiotic resistance arises when certain bacteria that can produce enzymes called extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (or ESBLs for short) become more common in the gut. These enzymes stop important antibiotics, like penicillin, from working. However, exactly which antibiotics and treatment durations contribute to the emergence of this antibiotic resistance remain unknown. Now, Niehus et al. find certain antibiotics that are associated with an increase in the number of gut bacteria carrying antibiotic resistance genes for ESBL enzymes. First, rectal swabs collected from 133 patients from three European hospitals were analysed to measure the total gut bacteria and the number of genes for ESBL enzymes. These samples had been collected at several time points including when the patient was first admitted to hospital, then every two to three days during their stay, and finally when they were discharged. Combining the analysis of the samples with details of the patients’ charts showed that treatment with two antibiotics: cefuroxime and ceftriaxone, was linked to an increase in ESBL genes in the gut bacteria. Other antibiotics – namely, meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam and oral ciprofloxacin – were associated with a decrease in the number of bacteria with ESBL genes. Niehus et al. then performed further analysis to see if different treatment regimens affected how long patients were carrying gut bacteria with ESBL genes. This predicted that a longer course of meropenem, 14 days rather than 5 days, would shorten the length of time patients carried ESBL-resistant bacteria in their guts by 70%, although this effect will likely depend on the location of the hospital and the local prevalence of other types of antibiotic resistance. This analysis reveals new details about how antibiotic treatment can affect ESBL resistance genes. More studies are needed to understand how antibiotics affect other antibiotic resistance genes and how resistant bacteria spread. This will help scientists understand how much specific antibiotic regimens contribute to antibiotic resistance. It may also help scientists develop new antibiotic treatment strategies that reduce antibiotic resistance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32379042
doi: 10.7554/eLife.49206
pii: 49206
pmc: PMC7205461
doi:
pii:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Bacterial Proteins
0
beta-Lactamases
EC 3.5.2.6
Banques de données
Dryad
['10.5061/dryad.8vf034t']
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01208519']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K006924/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department for International Development
ID : MR/K006924/1
Pays : International
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 106698/Z/14/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2020, Niehus et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
RN, Ev, YM, AT, CL, YC, HG, ET, BC, LP, SM No competing interests declared, BC Reviewing Editor, eLife
Références
Nature. 2018 Mar 29;555(7698):623-628
pubmed: 29555994
J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Oct;42(10):4769-75
pubmed: 15472339
J Clin Invest. 2003 Jul;112(2):275-85
pubmed: 12865415
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004 Jan;48(1):1-14
pubmed: 14693512
Nat Microbiol. 2016 Mar 07;1:16024
pubmed: 27572443
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014 Aug;69(8):2215-23
pubmed: 24710024
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2000 Sep;6(9):460-3
pubmed: 11168179
Nat Ecol Evol. 2019 Mar;3(3):440-449
pubmed: 30742105
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Dec 18;115(51):12902-12910
pubmed: 30559176
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 May 2;68(10):1699-1704
pubmed: 30204851
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 Aug;57(8):3659-66
pubmed: 23689712
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005 May;49(5):2137-9
pubmed: 15855548
J Med Microbiol. 2015 Jul;64(7):676-681
pubmed: 25934549
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001 Jul;48 Suppl 1:59-64
pubmed: 11420337
Evol Appl. 2019 Jan 21;12(3):365-383
pubmed: 30828361
Microbiome. 2017 Aug 14;5(1):88
pubmed: 28803549
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Dec 18;115(51):E11988-E11995
pubmed: 30559213
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012 Jul 16;10(8):538-50
pubmed: 22796884
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009 Apr;63(4):745-57
pubmed: 19218572
Emerg Infect Dis. 2002 Apr;8(4):347-54
pubmed: 11971765
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Jan;26(1):87-94
pubmed: 31128285
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019 Jul;17(7):441-448
pubmed: 30980069
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 Mar;57(3):1474-9
pubmed: 23295937
Clin Infect Dis. 2001 May 15;32 Suppl 2:S94-103
pubmed: 11320450
Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Oct 15;33(8):1288-94
pubmed: 11565067
Euro Surveill. 2008 Nov 20;13(47):
pubmed: 19021958
J Appl Microbiol. 2004;97(6):1166-77
pubmed: 15546407
Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1985 Dec;19(12):900-6
pubmed: 3910386
Clin Infect Dis. 2004 Jul 15;39(2):219-26
pubmed: 15307031
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Sep 11;10(9):e1003840
pubmed: 25210849
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Sep 13;102(37):13343-8
pubmed: 16141326
PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(12):e1003388
pubmed: 24348232
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Apr;13(4):657-64
pubmed: 248268
Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Jun;11(6):405-14
pubmed: 20479772
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Mar;18(3):318-327
pubmed: 29276051
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Oct 24;61(11):
pubmed: 28807914
BMC Med. 2018 Aug 23;16(1):137
pubmed: 30134939
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Jan;17(1):78-85
pubmed: 27751772
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011 Nov;72(5):758-67
pubmed: 21545483
J Hosp Infect. 2003 Nov;55 Suppl 1:1-12
pubmed: 14623198
Am J Med. 2006 Jun;119(6 Suppl 1):S20-8; discussion S62-70
pubmed: 16735147
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Feb 15;97(4):1938-43
pubmed: 10677558
J Basic Microbiol. 2007 Oct;47(5):413-6
pubmed: 17910106
Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Jul 1;33(1):126-8
pubmed: 11389506