Antibiotic cycling is not linked to a reduced incidence of health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA) or health care-associated Clostridium difficile
infection, the results of a recent study
In the January 2019 issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases,
the monthly peer-reviewed public health journal of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, investigators at a teaching hospital in Northern Ireland discuss the results of implementing a 2-year antibiotic cycling policy.
“[Health care-associated C diff
infection] incidence did not change, [and] health care-associated-MRSA incidence increased significantly in the intervention hospital,” Geraldine Mary Conlon-Bingham, MPharm, PhD, from Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, and colleagues wrote.
According to Dr. Conlon-Bingham and colleagues, antibiotic cycling has been suggested as a method to both increase antimicrobial heterogeneity and reduce the emergence of antimicrobial resistance.
With this in mind, the investigators designed a study to examine the effect of antibiotic cycling on the incidence of health care-associated-MRSA and health care-associated C diff
infection, as well as on the incidence of infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)–producing organisms.
From October 2013 to September 2015, they introduced cyclical restrictions of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, piperacillin-tazobactam, and clarithromycin.
They developed their policy based on a retrospective study of epidemiologic data that helped to identify which antimicrobial drugs to restrict—because of significant associations with health care-associated C diff
infection and health care-associated MRSA—and for which time periods.
In the antibiotic cycling schedule, use of piperacillin-tazobactam and macrolides was restricted to alternate months, while use of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was restricted to 2 consecutive months every 4 months.
The investigators used segmented regression analysis to compare outcomes between the hospital where the cycling policy was implemented (intervention) and another hospital with a standard policy (control hospital).
These outcomes included: the incidences of health care-associated MRSA, health care-associated C diff
infection, and new ESBL isolates, as well as changes in resistance patterns of the health care-associated MRSA and ESBL organisms.
The team found that, during antibiotic cycling, the incidence of health care-associated C diff
infection did not change at the intervention hospital, and that of health care-associated-MRSA increased significantly. Conversely, they found that the resistance of new ESBL isolates to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and piperacillin-tazobactam decreased significantly.
However, when the antibiotic cycling policy ended and the intervention hospital returned to using its standard policy, the incidence of health care-associated MRSA decreased, the incidence of new ESBLs increased, and ESBL resistance to piperacillin-tazobactam increased.
The team noted that their antibiotic cycling policy was not designed to reduce ESBL incidence. However, they monitored this to identify for inadvertent increases as a result of the policy. Because the increase in ESBLs did not continue throughout the postintervention period, they suggest that the rise may have been a delayed effect of the policy.
“Our results suggest that antibiotic cycling is not an appropriate strategy to reduce the incidence of [health care-associated] MRSA or [health care-associated C diff
infection] but might be effective in reducing ESBL resistance,” the investigators concluded.
“The increased use of fluoroquinolones in a cyclical fashion was not associated with any increase in [health care-associated C diff
infection], suggesting that this method may help diversify antimicrobial drug use while mitigating adverse effects.”
To stay informed on the latest in infectious disease news and developments, please sign up for our weekly newsletter.