IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002416.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating the fitness cost and benefit of cefixime resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae to inform prescription policy: A modelling study

Author

Listed:
  • Lilith K Whittles
  • Peter J White
  • Xavier Didelot

Abstract

Background: Gonorrhoea is one of the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infections in England. Over 41,000 cases were recorded in 2015, more than half of which occurred in men who have sex with men (MSM). As the bacterium has developed resistance to each first-line antibiotic in turn, we need an improved understanding of fitness benefits and costs of antibiotic resistance to inform control policy and planning. Cefixime was recommended as a single-dose treatment for gonorrhoea from 2005 to 2010, during which time resistance increased, and subsequently declined. Methods and findings: We developed a stochastic compartmental model representing the natural history and transmission of cefixime-sensitive and cefixime-resistant strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in MSM in England, which was applied to data on diagnoses and prescriptions between 2008 and 2015. We estimated that asymptomatic carriers play a crucial role in overall transmission dynamics, with 37% (95% credible interval CrI 24%–52%) of infections remaining asymptomatic and untreated, accounting for 89% (95% CrI 82%–93%) of onward transmission. The fitness cost of cefixime resistance in the absence of cefixime usage was estimated to be such that the number of secondary infections caused by resistant strains is only about half as much as for the susceptible strains, which is insufficient to maintain persistence. However, we estimated that treatment of cefixime-resistant strains with cefixime was unsuccessful in 83% (95% CrI 53%–99%) of cases, representing a fitness benefit of resistance. This benefit was large enough to counterbalance the fitness cost when 31% (95% CrI 26%–36%) of cases were treated with cefixime, and when more than 55% (95% CrI 44%–66%) of cases were treated with cefixime, the resistant strain had a net fitness advantage over the susceptible strain. Limitations include sparse data leading to large intervals on key model parameters and necessary assumptions in the modelling of a complex epidemiological process. Conclusions: Our study provides, to our knowledge, the first estimates of the fitness cost and benefit associated with resistance of the gonococcus to a clinically relevant antibiotic. Our findings have important implications for antibiotic stewardship and public health policies and, in particular, suggest that a previously abandoned antibiotic could be used again to treat a minority of gonorrhoea cases without raising resistance levels. In a modeling study, Xavier Didelot and colleagues address the implications of cefixime resistance for treatment of gonorrhea.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Lilith K Whittles & Peter J White & Xavier Didelot, 2017. "Estimating the fitness cost and benefit of cefixime resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae to inform prescription policy: A modelling study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002416
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002416
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002416&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002416?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002416. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.