| Literature DB >> 22272234 |
M Cyrus Maher1, Wondu Alemayehu, Takele Lakew, Bruce D Gaynor, Sara Haug, Vicky Cevallos, Jeremy D Keenan, Thomas M Lietman, Travis C Porco.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laboratory studies have suggested that antibiotic resistance may result in decreased fitness in the bacteria that harbor it. Observational studies have supported this, but due to ethical and practical considerations, it is rare to have experimental control over antibiotic prescription rates. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22272234 PMCID: PMC3260144 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029407
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1The prevalence of pneumococcal azithromycin resistance by village in the Ethiopian trachoma elimination study.
A.) The overall prevalence of azithromycin resistance. Dotted lines denote extrapolation to estimated baseline levels of resistance based on a prevalence of resistance of 0.8% in control villages. Uncertainty in this estimate is represented with an error bar, and distinguished from observed data with an asterisk. Arrows mark times at which community-wide antibiotic treatment took place. B.) The prevalence of ermB-mediated azithromycin resistance C.) The prevalence of mefA/E-mediated azithromycin resistance.
Parameter ranges tested during univariate sensitivity analysis, and their influence on calculated relative fitness.
| Sensitivity analysis | |||||
| Parameter | Baseline value | Range tested | Relative Fitness | Log-likelihood | |
|
|
| ||||
| Duration of infection (1/ | 8 | .74 [.69–.80] | .78 [.71–.84] | −162 | |
| 6 | .79 [.74–.85] | .82 [.76–.88] | −166 | ||
| 2 | .93 [.89–.97] | .94 [.90–.98] | −250 | ||
| Sensitive strain transmission rate constant ( | 3.25 | 2.5 | .86 [.81–.90] | .88 [.83–.93] | −184 |
| 4 | .85 [.81–.91] | .87 [.83–.93] | −184 | ||
| Antibiotic coverage*efficacy for drug sensitive strains (%) | 88 | 70 | .90 [.85–.95] | .92 [.87–.97] | −178 |
| 99 | .76 [.72–.81] | .79 [.74–.84] | −269 | ||
| Antibiotic coverage*efficacy for | 5 | 1 | .85 [.80–.90] | .88 [.82–.93] | −182 |
| 10 | .86 [.81–.91] | .87 [.82–.93] | −182 | ||
| Antibiotic coverage*efficacy for | 5 | 1 | .86 [.81–.90] | .87 [.82–.92] | −182 |
| 10 | .86 [.81–.90] | .88 [.83–.93] | −183 | ||
Units for are per infective, per susceptible, per week.
Figure 2The probability of survival versus time under the basecase model for A.) the mefA/E strain and B.) the ermB strain.
Upper and lower dashed lines, respectively, correspond to the probability of survival under the upper and lower bounds of the relative fitness estimate.