Impact of prophylactic and 'rescue pack' antibiotics on the airway microbiome in chronic lung disease

The management of many chronic lung diseases involves multiple antibiotic prescriptions either to treat acute exacerbations or as prophylactic therapy to reduce the frequency of exacerbations and improve patients’ quality of life. AIM: To investigate the effects of antibiotics on the homeostasis of bacterial communities in the airways, and how this may contribute to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) among respiratory pathogens and microbiota. METHODS: Within an observational cohort study, sputum was collected from 84 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and/or bronchiectasis at stable state: 47 were receiving antibiotic prophylaxis therapy. V3-V4 16S-rRNA sequencing on Illumina MiSeq, quantitative PCR for typical respiratory pathogens, bacteriology cultures and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of sputum isolates, resistome analysis on a subset of 17 sputum samples using MinION metagenomics sequencing were performed. FINDINGS: The phylogenetic α-diversity and the total bacterial density in sputum were significantly lower in patients receiving prophylactic antibiotics (p=0.014 and 0.029, respectively). Antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with significantly lower relative abundance of respiratory pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Moraxella catarrhalis and members of family Enterobacteriaceae in the airway microbiome, but not Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. No major definite directional shifts in the microbiota composition were identified with prophylactic antibiotic use at the cohort level. Surveillance of AMR and resistome analysis revealed a high frequency of resistance to macrolide and tetracycline in the cohort. AMR expressed by pathogenic bacterial isolates was associated with antibiotics prescribed as ‘rescue packs’ for prompt initiation of self-treatment of exacerbations (Spearman’s rho=0.408, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylactic therapy suppresses recognised pathogenic bacteria in the sputum of patients with chronic lung disease. The use of antibiotic rescue packs may be driving AMR in this cohort rather than prophylactic antibiotics

Baseline and acquired resistance to bedaquiline, linezolid and pretomanid, and impact on treatment outcomes in four tuberculosis clinical trials containing pretomanid

Bedaquiline (B), pretomanid (Pa) and linezolid (L) are key components of new regimens for treating rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (TB). However, there is limited information on the global prevalence of resistance to these drugs and the impact of resistance on treatment outcomes. Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) phenotypic drug susceptibility and whole-genome sequence (WGS) data, as well as patient profiles from 4 pretomanid-containing trials–STAND, Nix-TB, ZeNix and SimpliciTB–were used to investigate the rates of baseline resistance (BR) and acquired resistance (AR) to BPaL drugs, as well as their genetic basis, risk factors and impact on treatment outcomes. Data from >1,000 TB patients enrolled from 2015 to 2020 in 12 countries was assessed. We identified 2 (0.3%) participants with linezolid BR. Pretomanid BR was also rare, with similar rates across TB drug resistance types (0–2.1%). In contrast, bedaquiline BR was more prevalent among participants with highly resistant TB or longer prior treatment histories than those with newly diagnosed disease (5.2–6.3% vs. 0–0.3%). Bedaquiline BR was a risk factor for bacteriological failure or relapse in Nix-TB/ZeNix; 3/12 (25%, 95% CI 5–57%) participants with vs. 6/185 (3.2%, 1.2–6.9%) without bedaquiline BR. Across trials, we observed no linezolid AR, and only 3 cases of bedaquiline AR, including 2 participants with poor adherence. Overall, pretomanid AR was also rare, except in ZeNix patients with bedaquiline BR. WGS analyses revealed novel mutations in canonical resistant genes and, in 7 MTB isolates, the genetic determinants could not be identified. The overall low rates of BR to linezolid and pretomanid, and to a lesser extent to bedaquiline, observed in the pretomanid trials are in support of the worldwide implementation of BPaL-based regimens. Similarly, the overall low AR rates observed suggest BPaL drugs are better protected in the regimens trialed here than in other regimens combining bedaquiline with more, but less effective drugs