Staphylococcus aureus Tetracycline Resistance and Co-resistance in a Doxy-PEP-Eligible Population

Introduction

Rates of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are increasing in the United States.¹ Several randomized control trials demonstrated that doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxy-PEP), prescribed as 200 mg of doxycycline taken within 72 hours of condomless sex, reduces the incidence of bacterial STIs among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW).² These findings prompted national guidelines recommending consideration of doxy-PEP for MSM and TGW, particularly those who have had a bacterial STI in the past twelve months.³

One concern with doxy-PEP is that it may select for resistance to tetracyclines and other antibiotics both in the targeted pathogens and in bystander colonizing bacteria that have pathogenic potential. Supporting this concern, daily use of doxycycline selected for increased tetracycline resistance in the skin microbiome.⁴ Additionally, the US-based DoxyPEP study found increased rates of Staphylococcus aureus doxycycline resistance among participants receiving doxy-PEP, though the results were not statistically significant in the setting of a small sample size.²

While increasing rates of tetracycline resistance could create challenges in the treatment of many bacterial pathogens⁵, resistance in S. aureus is of particular concern. Doxycycline is a preferred therapy for stepdown and outpatient management of S. aureus, including methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).⁶ Furthermore, because resistance tends to aggregate in certain strains, selection of tetracycline-resistant S. aureus by doxy-PEP could lead to co-selection for strains that are resistant to other anti-staphylococcal antibiotics.⁷ Here, we sought to characterize patterns of S. aureus resistance and co-resistance in patients who may be prescribed doxy-PEP in an effort to understand the potential impact of widespread doxy-PEP adoption.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of all S. aureus cultures in people with a sex of male reported in the electronic medical record (EMR) who were either HIV-positive or prescribed HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), 18 years of age or older, and receiving care at two academic medical centers in Boston, MA between June 2015 and May 2022. Patients were identified using a clinical data repository containing microbiologic data, diagnosis codes, and medication prescriptions from the EMR. Because the number and gender of sexual partners was not reliably recorded in the EMR, HIV positivity and receipt of HIV-PrEP were used to identify patients whose sexual behaviors were most likely to qualify them for doxy-PEP under current guidelines.³

Unique episodes of infection were defined as all cultures that were positive for S. aureus with identical antibiotic susceptibility profiles within a 14-day period. Isolates were considered distinct if their susceptibility to any antibiotic was ≥ two 2-fold dilutions removed from the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the first isolated strain. If multiple S. aureus specimens with distinct susceptibility profiles were isolated during a given 14-day period, all were included (Table S1). Nasal swabs performed for MRSA surveillance were not included because they were not assessed for tetracycline susceptibility.

Susceptibility of S. aureus isolates to tetracycline, doxycycline, oxacillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX), and clindamycin were defined by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) MIC breakpoints.⁸ Isolates with inducible resistance to clindamycin were categorized as resistant. The frequency of resistance to oxacillin, TMP/SMX, and clindamycin in tetracycline-susceptible S. aureus isolates (TET-S, MIC ≤ 4.0 μg/mL) was compared to the frequency of resistance in the same antibiotics among tetracycline intermediate (TET-I, MIC = 8 μg/mL) or tetracycline resistant isolates (TET-R, MIC ≥ 16 μg/mL). Rates of institutional resistance were calculated using institution-specific antibiograms from 2022 which reported the resistance patterns of 5988 total isolates (2300 from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and 3477 from the Massachusetts General Hospital). Fisher’s exact test was used to assess resistance co-occurrence and adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Logistic regression was used to assess for association between year of sampling and resistance over the study period. Statistical tests were performed in R (version 4.1.2, R Core Team 2021),⁹ and the tidyverse package was used for data analysis and visualization.¹⁰

Results

We identified 832 isolates of S. aureus collected from 543 patients. The mean number of isolates collected per patient was 1.53, with a median of 1 and a maximum of 16 (Table S1). Most isolates were obtained from a skin/soft tissue source (280, 33.7%), an abscess (162, 19.5%), the lungs (126, 15.1%), or blood (83, 10.0%) (Table S2). While there was no statistically significant association between resistance to doxycycline, clindamycin, and TMP/SMX and the year of sampling, there was a statistically significant association between the year of sampling and resistance to tetracycline (p = 0.002) and oxacillin (p = 0.002), both of which increased over the study period (Figure S1). Isolates from our patient cohort were significantly more resistant to oxacillin, TMP/SMX, and clindamycin than the institutional averages reported in 2022 (Tables S3 and S4).

Of the 832 isolates, 829 had tetracycline susceptibility data, and 620 had doxycycline susceptibility data. Among isolates with tetracycline susceptibility data, 116 isolates were tetracycline resistant (MIC ≥ 16 μg/mL) and 4 isolates were tetracycline intermediate (MIC = 8 μg/mL). Among isolates with doxycycline susceptibility data, 10 were doxycycline resistant (MIC ≥ 16 μg/mL) and 18 were doxycycline intermediate (MIC = 8 μg/mL).

Patterns of co-resistance associated with tetracycline non-susceptibility are summarized in Table 1. There was no statistically significant association between tetracycline non-susceptibility and oxacillin resistance (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.83 – 2.21, p = 0.42). However, tetracycline non-susceptible isolates were 2.32 times more likely to be resistant to TMP/SMX (95% CI 1.20 – 4.32, p = 0.004), and 2.33 times more likely to be resistant to clindamycin (95% CI 1.43 – 3.82, p < 0.001) than tetracycline-susceptible isolates.

We assessed rates of resistance to doxycycline in tetracycline-susceptible and tetracycline-intermediate/resistant isolates. There were 620 isolates with both doxycycline and tetracycline MICs, with 524 tetracycline-susceptible and 96 tetracycline-intermediate/resistant isolates. Among tetracycline-susceptible isolates, 524 (100%) were also susceptible to doxycycline. Among tetracycline-intermediate/resistant isolates, 68 were susceptible (70.6%), 18 intermediate (18.8%), and 10 resistant (10.4%) to doxycycline (Figure S2).

Discussion

High-risk sexual practices are a risk factor for community-acquired MRSA in MSM living with HIV.¹¹ In keeping with this finding, S. aureus infections in our cohort of doxy-PEP eligible patients demonstrated increased rates of resistance to commonly used anti-staphylococcal antibiotics when compared to the institutional average. Furthermore, we found that tetracycline non-susceptibility in S. aureus was significantly associated with co-resistance to two anti-staphylococcal antibiotics, TMP/SMX and clindamycin, in a cohort of patients with a sex of male reported in the EMR who were either HIV-positive or prescribed HIV PrEP. While doxy-PEP offers a promising strategy to decrease the frequency of bacterial STIs, increased selective pressure from higher rates of doxycycline use¹² could foster tetracycline resistance in S. aureus and other common pathogens via bystander selection. Our results suggest that in selecting for tetracycline resistance, doxy-PEP could select for strains of S. aureus that are also resistant to TMP/SMX and clindamycin.

Limitations to this study include using HIV positivity and PrEP as a proxy for identifying those who might be prescribed doxy-PEP. This strategy likely excluded some who might be doxy-PEP eligible, such as MSM and TGW who are HIV-negative and not on PrEP, and included others in whom doxy-PEP is not currently recommended, such as men who have sex with women. Additionally, we used tetracycline susceptibility as a proxy for susceptibility to doxycycline, following CLSI guidelines.⁹ However, many tetracycline-resistant isolates were reported as doxycycline-susceptible. Our cohort included too few examples of isolates with doxycycline MICs greater than ≥16 μg/mL to draw meaningful conclusions about co-inheritance of resistance to other antibiotics at this threshold. As the strength of doxy-PEP selection for tetracycline resistance in S. aureus is unknown, we made the conservative choice to evaluate at the CLSI cutoff for tetracycline non-susceptibility.

To date, studies examining development of antimicrobial resistance in S. aureus after use of doxy-PEP have been limited in size and focused on resistance to doxycycline. Our findings suggest that the doxy-PEP eligible population is already more likely to carry resistant strains of S. aureus. Furthermore, use of doxy-PEP in this population may select for strains of S. aureus that carry resistance to not only tetracyclines, but also to other common anti-staphylococcal antibiotics. The extent to which doxy-PEP will select for these strains and the efficiency with which resistant strains will be transmitted is unknown. Thus, it will be important to consider monitoring S. aureus resistance to tetracyclines and to other classes of antibiotics in patients taking doxy-PEP.