Standard antibiotic courses lead to antibiotic resistance

The antibiotic course has had its day | The BMJ – July 2017

With little evidence that failing to complete a prescribed antibiotic course contributes to antibiotic resistance, it’s time for policy makers, educators, and doctors to drop this message, argue Martin Llewelyn and colleagues.

Antibiotics are vital to modern medicine and antibiotic resistance is a global, urgent threat to human health. The relation between antibiotic exposure and antibiotic resistance is unambiguous both at the population level and in individual patients.

However, the idea that stopping antibiotic treatment early encourages antibiotic resistance is not supported by evidence, while taking antibiotics for longer than necessary increases the risk of resistance.  

Without explicitly contradicting previous advice, current public information materials from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Public Health England have replaced “complete the course” with messages advocating taking antibiotics “exactly as prescribed.”

We explore the evidence for antibiotic duration, clinical effectiveness, and resistance, and encourage policy makers, educators, and doctors to stop advocating “complete the course” when communicating with the public.

Further, they should publicly and actively state that this was not evidence-based and is incorrect.

This seems unlikely because such long-held “wisdoms” are ingrained in institutions, guidelines, standard procedures, doctors’ education, and patients’ minds.

Origins of the idea

Concern that giving too little antibiotic treatment could select for antibiotic resistance can be traced back to the dawn of the antibiotic era.

When Howard Florey’s team treated Albert Alexander’s staphylococcal sepsis with penicillin in 1941 they eked out all the penicillin they had (around 4 g, less than one day’s worth with modern dosing) over four days

When the drug ran out, the clinical improvement they had noted reversed and he subsequently succumbed to his infection.

There was no evidence that this was because of resistance, but the experience may have planted the idea that prolonged therapy was needed to avoid treatment failure.

Antibiotic treatment drives resistance

Infections typically begin when a small population of microorganisms gain access to the host and replicate.

Genetic mutations conferring antibiotic resistance may arise spontaneously during replication and be selected for during treatment.

Target selected resistance can occur with inadequate antimicrobial dosing or with monotherapy for infections for which spontaneous resistant mutations arise on treatment, such as tuberculosis, gonorrhoea, and HIV.

Early trials of tuberculosis treatment showed resistance emerging during monotherapy and underpin the need for combination therapy for this disease. Transmission of such pathogens during or following inadequate treatment may allow resistant strains to spread from person to person.

However, most of the bacterial species now posing the greatest problems do not develop resistance through target selection.

The clinical threat comes mainly from species such as Escherichia coli and the so called ESKAPE organisms (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter spp, Pseudomonas spp, Enterobacter spp), which are all found harmlessly in us, on us, or in our environment.

They can also act as “opportunistic” pathogens.

When a patient takes antibiotics for any reason, antibiotic sensitive species and strains present among commensal flora on their skin or gut or in the environment are replaced by resistant species and strains ready to cause infection in the future.

This collateral selection is the predominant driver of the important forms of antibiotic resistance affecting patients today.

Collateral selection:
Many bacterial species that live harmlessly in the gut, on our skin and mucus membranes, or in the environment can also cause disease as opportunist pathogens.
For such organisms, resistance selection occurs predominantly during antibiotic treatment of other infections.
Resistance in opportunists may be passed easily to other strains of the same species of bacteria or to different species.

The longer the antibiotic exposure these opportunist bacteria are subjected to, the greater the pressure to select for antibiotic resistance.

Importantly for these opportunistic pathogens, resistant strains are transmitted between asymptomatic carriers rather than people with disease.

Furthermore, many resistance conferring genes can pass easily between bacterial strains or species.

Thus antibiotic selection may drive outbreaks of resistant infections independently of transmission of a specific strain or species.

From fear of undertreatment to harm from overtreatment

Fundamental to the concept of an antibiotic course is the notion that shorter treatment will be inferior. There is, however, little evidence that currently recommended durations are minimums, below which patients will be at increased risk of treatment failure.

Historically, antibiotic courses were set by precedent, driven by fear of undertreatment, with less concern about overuse.

For many indications, recommended durations have decreased as evidence of similar clinical outcomes with shorter courses has been generated.

For most indications, studies to identify the minimum effective treatment duration simply have not been performed.

For the opportunist pathogens for which antimicrobial resistance poses the greatest threat, no clinical trials have shown increased risk of resistance among patients taking shorter treatments.

Not only does an individual patient’s risk of resistant infection depend on their previous antibiotic exposure, but reducing that exposure by shorter treatment is associated with reduced risk of resistant infection and better clinical outcome.

In hospital acquired pneumonia, for example, randomised controlled trial data indicate that short treatment strategies have equivalent clinical outcomes to longer courses and are associated with lower rates of infection recurrence and antibiotic resistance.

Is the concept of an antibiotic course still valid?

The concept of an antibiotic course ignores the fact that patients may respond differently to the same antibiotic, depending on diverse patient and disease factors.

Currently, we largely ignore this fact and instead make indication specific recommendations for antibiotic duration that are based on poor evidence.

patients might be best advised to stop treatment when they feel better, in direct contradiction of WHO advice.

Of note, a recent clinical trial found that using fever resolution to guide stopping antibiotics in community acquired pneumonia halved the average duration of antibiotic treatment without affecting clinical success.

“Complete the course”: a barrier to antibiotic conservation

The fallacious belief that antibiotic courses should always be completed to minimise resistance is likely to be an important barrier to reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

The idea is deeply embedded, and both doctors and patients currently regard failure to complete a course of antibiotics as irresponsible behaviour.

strategies to reduce overuse aim to change, or ideally stop, antibiotics 48-72 hours after they are started, but these are challenging to implement.

Designing trials of antibiotic sparing treatment is notoriously difficult,

What should we advise patients?

The “complete the course” message has persisted despite not being supported by evidence and previous arguments that it should be replaced.

Daily review of the continued need for antibiotics is a cornerstone of antibiotic stewardship in hospitals, but in primary care, where 85% of antibiotic prescriptions are written, no such ongoing assessment is attempted.

Completing the course goes against one of the most fundamental and widespread medication beliefs people have, which is that we should take as little medication as necessary.

Research is needed to determine the most appropriate simple alternative messages, such as stop when you feel better.

Until then, public education about antibiotics should highlight the fact that antibiotic resistance is primarily the result of antibiotic overuse and is not prevented by completing a course.

Key messages:

  • Patients are put at unnecessary risk from antibiotic resistance when treatment is given for longer than necessary, not when it is stopped early
  • For common bacterial infections no evidence exists that stopping antibiotic treatment early increases a patient’s risk of resistant infection
  • Antibiotics are a precious and finite natural resource which should be conserved by tailoring treatment duration for individual patients
  • Clinical trials are required to determine the most effective strategies for optimising duration of antibiotic treatment
Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Standard antibiotic courses lead to antibiotic resistance

  1. Emily Raven

    I still think we should watch out with how resistant everything is now. I mean maybe the science isn’t there for human stuff yet but in animals like cows when they’re fed small amounts of antibitocs to “prevent” diseases there are reports of it being a heck of alot worse after doing so, and on large scale in large populations of animals. Better safe than sorry.

    I mean there’s alot of anecdotes out there of people stopping abx for something like a UTI when it feels better and then it turns into something that’s rediculously hard to treat. I know they’re just anecdotes but it seems to happen a heck of alot.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Zyp Czyk Post author

      I really don’t know, so I would go with what my body is telling me. We pain patients have an unusually well-developed sense of our body’s functioning, and I think we have to use that as our guide for our healthcare in general.

      Just because a treatment works well for the “average” patient (the one with 1 breast, 1 testicle, and 1.14 kids) doesn’t mean much for how it will work in my strange body, so I’m really the only one who can say which treatments have the best cost/benefit ratio.

      My doc is self-confident enough to understand this and always values my feedback and input when determining treatments. Cephalexin made me break out in horrible anxiety, of all things. Most docs would have written me off as hysterical, but mine simply said “well, that’s possible” and switched me to a different one.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  2. Kathy C

    We have a big problem here. Just like so any other areas, they just did not do any “Research.” The clearest thing that come to my ind is that these Antibiotics are sold Over the Counter in other countries. No so called “Researcher” ever looked at that to determine if it had an effect on “Antibiotic Resistance”. People with access to OTC Antibiotics do not seem to be developing Strains at a higher Rate than where the Antibiotics are more controlled. I might be wrong, but it would have been an area they could have tracked somehow. There are people that take Antibiotics when they develop any kind of Symptom, and stop taking them a couple of days later when they feel better. This kind of usage was never studied.
    So many of the Side Effects, Adverse Events and infections were not tracked for a reason, they did not help the bottom line of the Pharmaceutical Companies. The Hospital Industry, and their Lobbyists, found that even reporting the Cases of Infections, Antibiotic Resistant or not was not good for their image, or their Bottom Line. These Industries made sure that the “Government” could nto track much of anything. They told Congress that tracking this kind of Data was “Government Overreach.” If one of these cases of Antibiotic resistance showed up at you local Hospital, it would be unlikely to be reported in any way. The Public is being kept in the dark, because the Industry decided a long tie ago, that Facts were not profitable. Many of the deaths associated with Antibiotic resistance are nto even counted. Loose Reporting Requirements, demanded by the Industries are so ingrained in out Healthcare System, even Scientists at the NIH won’t challenge them. .

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Zyp Czyk Post author

      I agree that much of the orthodoxy in medicine needs to be challenged.

      I suspect much dogma will be overturned in the next years as science progresses, if it can get out from under the influence of financial interests.

      That seems to be the biggest problem these days.

      Like

      Reply

Other thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s