Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 13;16(10):e0257190. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257190

Impact of mass administration of azithromycin as a preventive treatment on the prevalence and resistance of nasopharyngeal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus

Soumeya Hema-Ouangraoua 1,*, Juliette Tranchot-Diallo 1,2,#, Issaka Zongo 3,#, Nongodo Firmin Kabore 1,#, Frédéric Nikièma 3, Rakiswende Serge Yerbanga 3, Halidou Tinto 3, Daniel Chandramohan 4, Georges-Anicet Ouedraogo 2, Brian Greenwood 4,, Jean-Bosco Ouedraogo 3,
Editor: Ray Borrow5
PMCID: PMC8513893  PMID: 34644317

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus is a major cause of serious illness and death in children, indicating the need to monitor prevalent strains, particularly in the vulnerable pediatric population. Nasal carriage of S. aureus is important as carriers have an increased risk of serious illness due to systemic invasion by this pathogen and can transmit the infection. Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of azithromycin in reducing the prevalence of nasopharyngeal carrying of pneumococci, which are often implicated in respiratory infections in children. However, very few studies of the impact of azithromycin on staphylococci have been undertaken. During a clinical trial under taken in 2016, nasal swabs were collected from 778 children aged 3 to 59 months including 385 children who were swabbed before administration of azithromycin or placebo and 393 after administration of azithromycin or placebo. Azithromycin was given in a dose of 100 mg for three days, together with the antimalarials sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine, on four occasions at monthly intervals during the malaria transmission season. These samples were cultured for S. aureus as well as for the pneumococcus. The S. aureus isolates were tested for their susceptibility to azithromycin (15 g), penicillin (10 IU), and cefoxitine (30 g) (Oxoid Ltd). S. aureus was isolated from 13.77% (53/385) swabs before administration of azithromycin and from 20.10% (79/393) six months after administration (PR = 1.46 [1.06; 2.01], p = 0.020). Azithromycin resistance found in isolates of S. aureus did not differ significantly before and after intervention (26.42% [14/53] vs 16.46% [13/79], (PR = 0.62 [0.32; 1.23], p = 0.172). Penicillin resistance was very pronounced, 88.68% and 96.20% in pre-intervention and in post-intervention isolates respectively, but very little Methicillin Resistance (MRSA) was detected (2 cases before and 2 cases after intervention). Monitoring antibiotic resistance in S. aureus and other bacteria is especially important in Burkina Faso due to unregulated consumption of antibiotics putting children and others at risk.

Introduction

In 2018, despite progress over the past two decades, an estimated 5.3 million children under five-year old died, mainly from preventable or treatable causes such as birth complications, pneumonia, diarrhea, neonatal septicemia or malaria [1]. Sub-Saharan Africa remained the region of the world with the highest under-five mortality rate. The average under-five mortality rate was 78 deaths per 1,000 live births resulting in the death of one in 13 children before their fifth birthday [1].

In recent years, much attention has been paid to the potential of mass drug administration (MDA) of azithromycin (AZ) to reduce under-five mortality. Recent studies conducted in Ethiopia and the MORDOR trial in Malawi, Niger and Tanzania showed that MDA with AZ was associated with a significant reduction in child mortality, especially in infants [2,3]. However, a trial conducted in Burkina Faso and Mali in which AZ was given together with Seasonal Malarial Chemoprevention (SMC) drugs (sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine) did not detect any reduction in deaths or hospital admissions [4]. Several studies have documented the collateral effects of MDAs with AZ, including the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, which is a global public health concern. Studies on the acquisition of resistance after MDA have focused mainly on gut bacteria and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Studies in Tanzania, Nepal, and Gambia have shown no evidence of such resistance following a single treatment cycle [57]. Other studies have suggested that resistance can emerges after a single round mass treatment [8,9]. Recently, a study in Burkina Faso and Mali has shown the emergence of pneumococcal resistance after six semi-annual cycles of administration of azithromycin which persisted for a year after the last drug administration [10].

To date, little work has been done to assess the effect of AZ MDAs on other bacterial pathogens. A number of recent studies have looked at the gut resistome post azithromycin MDA uch as placebo-controlled trials reported by Doan et al. [11,12] have shown rates of macrolide resistance after multiple administrations of azithromycin that are approximately four times higher in cases than in controls. The main bacteria causing invasive diseases in children were, until fairly recently, S. pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae. However, following the widespread use of conjugate vaccines against H. influenzae type b (Hib) and S. pneumoniae, Hib infections have decreased significantly [13,14] and pneumococcal vaccine serotype infections are decreasing also [15]. The decrease in the incidence of the disease associated with these two pathogens has resulted in S. aureus becoming a relatively more common cause of invasive bacterial diseases than in the past [4].

In sub-Saharan Africa, S. aureus bacteremia is a common cause of invasive bacterial disease in children. Hospital studies have shown that S. aureus is the most common cause of invasive bacterial diseases in children under 5 years of age in Gambia and Nigeria [16,17].

This ancillary study to the trial conducted in Burkina Faso and Mali [4] has examined the impact of azithromycin administration as a preventive treatment on the prevalence of S. aureus nasopharyngeal carriage and its resistance to azithromycin. The impact of AZ administration of carriage of S. pneumoniae in the same population has been reported previously [10].

Study population and methods

Population

This study is a sub-study of a recently conducted trial which investigated the impact of adding AZ to the antimalarial drugs used for Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention (SMC) in Burkina Faso and Mali [4]. In summary, 19,200 children aged from 3 to 59 months were randomized to receive Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine (SP) and Amodiaquine (AQ) (Guilin Pharmaceutical, Shanghai, China) with Azithromycin (AZ) (Cipla, Mumbai, India) or placebo (P). A household census was conducted in June 2014, and children of either sex who were 3 to 59 months of age on August 1, 2014, were eligible for enrollment in the trial. The household census was repeated in May 2015 and in May 2016 to recruit additional eligible children and to detect any deaths that had been missed through the surveillance system. The children were selected from all over the Houndé region. Each year, children who were still younger than 60 months of age on August 1 remained in follow-up for the subsequent trial year, and children who had reached 5 years of age on or before July 31 exited the trial on that date. Randomization was performed according to household to avoid the potential effect of within household transmission of infection; all eligible children who shared a kitchen were assigned to the same trial group. To mask the trial-group assignments for the trial team and caregivers, a placebo for azithromycin of identical appearance was used. Infants aged 3 to 11 months received 250 mg/12.5 mg of SP and 75 mg of AQ on day 1 and 75 mg of AQ on days 2 and 3. In addition, they received 100 mg of AZ or a AZ placebo on days 1, 2 and 3. Children between the ages of 1 and 4 received double of these doses. The drug combination SP-AQ was provided by the pharmaceutical company, Guilin Pharmaceutical (Shanghai, China) and Azithromycin and the corresponding placebo were provided by the CIPLA laboratory (Mumbai, India). All treatment doses were administered by trial staff. Coverage with monthly treatments was high, with more than 80% of children receiving three or four treatment cycles each year. Deaths, hospital admissions and clinic attendances were recorded throughout the study period [4]. Cross-sectional surveys were conducted at the end of each malaria transmission season [4] (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Screening, randomization, and follow-up.

Fig 1

Nasopharyngeal sampling

Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained in 2014, 2015, and 2016 in July before AZ administration and in December after administration each year (hereafter referred to as pre- and post- interventions samples). Only samples taken from pre- and post-2016 interventions were evaluated for nasopharyngeal carriage of S. aureus. A total of 385 and 393 children, randomly selected from the 10,636 children who participated in the trial in Burkina Faso provided samples before and after administration of AZ or its placebo, respectively.

Swabs were taken from the posterior wall of a child’s nasopharynx using a calcium alginate swab (FLOQSwabs™ Copan/USA) and immediately transferred to cryotubes containing a milk-tryptone-glucose-glycerol (STGG) medium. These cryotubes were tagged and placed in a cooler with ice packs before being transferred to the laboratory within eight hours of sampling and they were then kept at -80 degrees Celsius until analysis.

Laboratory methods

The nasopharyngeal samples were thawed at room temperature and 10 μl of each sample were inoculated on Chapman medium (Oxoid Ltd) and incubated for 24 hours at 37 degrees Celsius. Presumed colonies of S. aureus, indicated by the presence of a golden yellow pigment, were purified by cultivation on fresh agar containing 5% fresh sheep’s blood and incubated under the same conditions. The coagulase agglutination test (Slidex Staph plus, BioMérieux®SA) was carried out on well-characterized colonies to confirm their identification as S. aureus. Standard 0.5 McFarland S. aureus colony suspensions were seeded in Mueller Hinton agar for the following antibiotic sensitivity tests: azithromycin (15 μg), penicillin (10 IU) and cefoxitin (30 μg) (Oxoid Ltd). Susceptibility results were interpreted in accordance with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [18]. Azithromycin resistance (AzmR) was defined by an inhibition diameter of 13 mm or less around the antibiotic disk, penicillin by an inhibition diameter of 28 mm or less, and that of cefoxitin by a diameter of 21 mm or less.

Statistical considerations

The primary endpoint of the study was the prevalence of S. aureus carriage in intervention and control groups. A secondary endpoint was the overall prevalence of AZ-resistant S. aureus isolates in nasopharyngeal carriage. The evaluation criteria included an analysis of the sensitivity of staphylococci to other antibiotics. Demographic and biologic data are shown as proportions and compared by Pearson chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Prevalence ratio estimated by Poisson regression was used to compare prevalence. The significance threshold for all statistical tests was 0.05.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health of Burkina Faso. The prospective study was recorded on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02211729). Written consent of the parents or guardians was obtained for the inclusion of a child in the overall trial and for inclusion in this sub-study.

Results

Study participants

A total of 385 children (193 in the Azithromycin group, and 192 in the placebo group) were swabbed in 2016 before the intervention, and 393 (192 in the Azithromycin group and 201 in the placebo group) were swabbed after the intervention. Demographic and biological data of trial participants are given in Table 1. Only 7.07% of study participants carried both pneumococci and staphylococci.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the study population.

Pre-intervention 2016 (before) Post intervention- 2016 (after)
 Azithromycin N = 193 Placebo N = 192 p-value*  Azithromycin N = 192 Placebo N = 201 p-value*
Age (years) group, n (%) <1 25 (13) 32 (16.67) 0.283 17 (8.85) 16 (7.96) 0.60
1–2 90 (46.63) 75 (39.06) 93 (48.44) 89 (44.28)
3–5 78 (40.41) 85 (44.27) 82 (42.71) 96 (47.76)
Males, n (%) 87 (45.08) 88 (45.83) 0.882 89 (46.35) 99 (49.25) 0.57

*p value for the comparison between AZ and placebo groups. Pearson chi-square test was used for these comparisons.

Carriage with S. aureus

S. aureus carriage before and after intervention were shown in Table 2. There was no difference in S. aureus carriage between the AZ and placebo groups before intervention (p = 0.899) or after the intervention (p = 0.267).

Table 2. Microbiological characteristics of the study population.

Pre-2016 (before) Post- 2016 (after)
 Azithromycin N = 193  Placebo N = 192 P value  Azithromycin N = 192  Placebo N = 201  P value
Recent antibiotic use, n(%) 13 (34.21)  13 (40.63) 0.580  8 (66.67) 9 (56.25) 0.705
S. pneumoniae (Sp) carriage, n(%) 95 (49.22) 103 (53.65) 0.442 84 (43.75) 99 (49.25) 0.311
Sp/AZ resistance, n(%) 9 (6.38) 11 (10.7) 0.761 22 (25.6) 13 (13.1) 0.034
S. aureus (S.a) carriage, n(%) 27 (13.99) 26 (13.54) 0.899 43 (22.40) 36 (17.91) 0.28
S.a/AZ resistance, n(%) 8 (29.63) 6 (23.08) 0.589 9 (20.93) 4 (11.11) 0.24
Double carriage, n(%) 10 (5.18) 12 (6.25) 0.651 17 (8.85) 16 (7.96) 0.75

*p value for the comparison between AZ and placebo groups. Pearson chi-square test was used for these comparisons.

Frequency of azithromycin-resistant S. aureus

The overall frequency of S. aureus resistance to azithromycin (AzmR) was 26.42% ((14/ 53) [CI 95% 16.15; 40.08] and 16.46% (13/79) [CI 95% 9.72; 26.49], respectively before and after intervention. There was unable to find a significant difference in this relatively small sample. There was also no difference in S. aureus resistance according to the arm of treatment (PR = 1.51 [0.74; 3.07], p = 0.259) (Fig 2A).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Prevalence of S. aureus resistance to antibiotic: a) Resistance to azithromycin by arm before and after intervention; b) resistance to penicillin and cefoxitin before and after administration of azithromycin.

Frequency of resistance to other antibiotics

The overall prevalence of penicillin resistance (both arms combined) was very high—88.68% [95% CI 76.72; 94.90] before and 96.20% [95% CI 88.70; 98.79] after the intervention (PR = 1.08 [0.97, 1.21], 1.21] p = 0.137). Resistance to penicillin did not vary according to the treatment arm (PR = 1.22 [0.98; 1.52], p = 0.076) (Fig 2B).

Only 4 cases of cefoxitin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) were detected; two cases before the intervention both in the azithromycin arm and two after intervention, one in each arm.

Discussion

S. aureus is a well-known pathogen whose resistance to most available antimicrobial agents is increasing alarmingly. In this study, a 13.77% nasopharyngeal carriage rate of S. aureus was found prior to the intervention, a similar prevalence of S. aureus carriage to that found in an Ethiopian study in 2017 that reported a prevalence of 13% (52/400) among pre-school children [19]. On the other hand, the rate found in this study was a little lower than that of a Ugandan child population in the same age group with a carriage rate of 19.4% [20] or in a Ghanaian population where it was 21% [21]. After mass administration of azithromycin in the community, the prevalence of S. aureus carriage increased up to 20.10% in contrast to the carriage rate of pneumococci in the same children which fell from 51.69% to 46.71% in 2016. Azithromycin resistance for S. aureus did not increase after administration of the antibiotic overall or in either arm (PR = 1.51 [0.74; 3.07], p = 0.259). In contrast this was not the case for pneumococcal resistance, where an increase in azithromycin resistance was seen in children in the same study and was more significant in children treated with azithromycin PR = 1,95 (1,05, 3,61)P = 0,034 [10]. However, an effect might have been seen had AZ administration continued for more than one year as was seen when resistance of pneumococci to AZ was followed for a longer period [10]. A high prevalence rate of resistance to penicillin was found with more than 90% of the strains produced penicillinase. This rate of resistance to S. aureus to penicillin is similar to that reported in most Africa studies [1922]. However, the resistance to cefoxitin found in our study (4 cases) was lower estimates than in some other studies [22,23].

While it is one of the most common commensals in normal flora, S. aureus is a dangerous pathogen that has developed resistance to nearly every new antibiotic introduced in half a century. The plasticity of its genome gives the bacterium the ability to adapt to all environmental conditions, including acquiring antibiotic resistance genes and developing regulatory mechanisms to adapt to increasing concentrations of antibiotics. Although MDA with azithromycin was not found to lead to an increase in resistance of S. aureus to this antibiotic in this study; The relatively wide CIs would suggest that further studies are necessary to better assess AMR.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOC)

S2 File

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Ministry of Health staff in Houndé district for their assistance: the lab technicians, data clerks, field workers and supervisors for data collection, and all the caretakers and children for their participation.

Data Availability

Data remain available upon request due to patient confidentiality and deposited in the MURAZ computing center. The data remains available on request from the data manager Mr Diallo Ibrahima at cdcmuraz@gmail.com or dikydiallo@gmail.com. There are no barriers to accessing the data. You just need to make the access request to the data manager who will request the co-authors to agree before sharing.

Funding Statement

This sub-study was ancillary to a large study (AZSMC), so we did not receive funding for it, but the AZSMC study was funded by the Joint Global Health Trials scheme; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02211729.

References

  • 1.Levels and Trends in Child Mortality Estimation. 2019: New York. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 2.Porco TC, Gebre T, Ayele B, et al. Effect of mass distribution of azithromycin for trachoma control on overall mortality in Ethiopian children: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;302(9):962–968. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1266 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Keenan JD, Ayele B, Gebre T, et al. Childhood mortality in a cohort treated with mass azithromycin for trachoma. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(7): 883–888. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chandramohan D, Dicko A, Zongo I, et al. Effect of Adding Azithromycin to Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(23):2197–2206. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1811400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Batt SL, Charalambous BM, Solomon AW, et al. Impact of azithromycin administration for trachoma control on the carriage of antibiotic-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47(9):2765–2769. doi: 10.1128/AAC.47.9.2765-2769.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gaynor BD, Holbrook KA, Whitcher JP, et al. Community treatment with azithromycin for trachoma is not associated with antibiotic resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae at 1 year. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(2):147–148. doi: 10.1136/bjo.87.2.147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Burr SE, Milne S, Jafali J, et al. Mass administration of azithromycin and Streptococcus pneumoniae carriage: cross-sectional surveys in the Gambia. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92(7):490–498. doi: 10.2471/BLT.13.133462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Leach AJ, Shelby-James TM, Mayo M, et al. A prospective study of the impact of community-based azithromycin treatment of trachoma on carriage and resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;24(3):356–362. doi: 10.1093/clinids/24.3.356 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Coles CL, Mabula K, Seidman JC, et al. Mass distribution of azithromycin for trachoma control is associated with increased risk of azithromycin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae carriage in young children 6 months after treatment. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(11):1519–1526. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hema-Ouangraoua S, Aziz Maiga A, Cairns M, et al. Impact of the addition of azithromycin to antimalarials used for seasonal malaria chemoprevention on antimicrobial resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Trop Med Int Health. 2019;24(12):1442–1454. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Doan T, Arzika AM, Hinterwirth A, Maliki R, Abdou A et al.(2019).Gut and Nasopharyngeal Macrolide Resistance in the MORDOR Study: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Niger. N EnglJ Med. 380(23):2271–2273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Doan T, Worden L, Hinterwirth A et al. (2020). Macrolide and Non macrolide Resistance with Mass Azithromycin Distribution. N Engl J Med 2020; 383:1941–1950. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2002606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Oluwalana C, Howie SR, Secka O, et al. Incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type b disease in The Gambia 14 years after introduction of routine Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine immunization. J Pediatr. 2013;163(1 Suppl):S4–S7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.03.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kaboré NF, Poda GE, Barro M, et al. Impact de la vaccination sur la méningite à H. influenzae b de 2004 à 2008, à Bobo Dioulasso (Burkina Faso) [Impact of vaccination on admissions for Haemophilus influenzae b meningitis from 2004 to 2008 in Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso]. Med Sante Trop. 2012;22(4):425–429. doi: 10.1684/mst.2012.0122 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mackenzie GA, Hill PC, Jeffries DJ, et al. Effect of the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination on invasive pneumococcal disease in The Gambia: a population-based surveillance study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(6):703–711. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00054-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mulholland EK, Ogunlesi OO, Adegbola RA, et al. Etiology of serious infections in young Gambian infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1999;18(10 Suppl): S35–S41. doi: 10.1097/00006454-199910001-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Uzodimma C C, Njokanma F, Ojo O, Falase M, Ojo T. Bacterial Isolates from Blood Cultures of Children with Suspected Sepsis in An Urban Hospital in Lagos: A Prospective Study Using BACTEC Blood Culture System. The Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology. 2013. Volume 16 Number 1. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institut: Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests; aprouved standard, 26 th ed. M100S. 2014.
  • 19.Reta A., Wubie M. & Mekuria G. Nasal colonization and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of Staphylococcus aureus among pre-school children in Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes 2017. >; 10, 746. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-3079-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kateete DP., Asiimwe B.B., Mayanja R. et al. Nasopharyngeal carriage, spa types and antibiotic susceptibility profiles of Staphylococcus aureus from healthy children less than 5 years in Eastern Uganda. BMC Infect Dis 2019; 19, 1023. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4652-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Eibach D, Nagel M, Hogan B, et al. Nasal Carriage of Staphylococcus aureus among Children in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. PLoS One. 2017;12(1): e0170320. Published 2017 Jan 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Walter S., Böck R., Antibiotic Resistance Trends of Nasal Staphylococcal Isolates from Namibian School Children. Journal of Biosciences and Medicines, 2020. 8: p. 18–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Odutola A, C.Bottomley C., ZamanS A, et al. , Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia in Children of Rural Areas of The Gambia, 2008–2015. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2019. 25(4). doi: 10.3201/eid2504.180935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ray Borrow

3 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-33805

Impact of mass administration of azithromycin as a preventive treatment on the prevalence and resistance of nasopharyngeal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ouangraoua,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 17 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ray Borrow, Ph.D., FRCPath

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please confirm that you have included all items recommended in the CONSORT checklist including identifying the study as a randomized trial in the title.

3.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Georges-Anicet Ouédraogo.

5. Please upload a copy of Figure 1, to which you refer in your text on page 8. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this study, the authors examined whether mass drug administration of azithromycin induces antimicrobial resistance to S. aureus in children in Burkina Faso when administered with anti-malarial meds. Prevalence of the infection was also estimated before and after intervention. Data for this study were collected as part of a larger trial of 19,200 children in Burkina Faso and Mali. This secondary analysis of data from that study parallels a prior study by the lead author on resistance to Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Comments:

• Only children from Burkina Faso were included in this study. Why were data on children from Mali excluded? Given that these data were derived from a published clinical trial which included roughly twice as many children, could the authors explain why only half the children were included? The study of resistance to S. pneumoniae included all children from both B.F. and Mali.

Introduction

• It seems odd that this is not identified as a sub-study of one of the studies that is referenced (ll.53-56). Although this is mentioned in the Study Population section, I think that this information should be clearly stated in the introduction (rather than referring to the parent trial as if it were a separate study).

Methods

• Why were swabs from the third year only of the study included? Again, the study on S. pneumoniae contained data from all three years. Could the authors explain why they chose to limit the data to the third year only?

• Although several studies have already been published from this trial, I still think it would be helpful to include some details about how the children were enrolled (in a dynamically stable cohort?) over the three-year period. In other areas as well, the paper would benefit from being a little more fleshed out with details, for those who have not read the other papers.

Results

• ll.136-37 I found this somewhat confusing as written. A clearer description would include the numbers shown in Table 1: “A total of 385 children (193 in the Azithromycin group, and 192 in the placebo group) were swabbed in 2016 before the intervention, and 393 (192 in the Azithromycin group and 201 in the placebo group) were swabbed after the intervention.” Not all children were administered AZ, so it would be more correct if the authors referred to pre- and post-intervention, rather than pre- and post-administration of AZ.

• As the authors stated that the primary objective of their study was to examine the prevalence of azithromycin-resistant S. aureus before and after the intervention, this section should precede the section on carriage with S.aureus (although that is what is stated in the Statistical Consideration section, in the introduction it is stated that the study “has examined the impact of azithromycin administration as a preventive treatment on the prevalence of S. aureus nasopharyngeal carriage and its resistance to azithromycin”). These two statements should be consistent with one another.

• The authors compare rates of S. aureus carriage in the treatment and intervention groups both before and after the intervention. They also present rates before and after within the two groups. This is confusing, given that the first set of results are presented in Table 1 and the second set are not. Perhaps a table that clearly presented both sets of results could be substituted. The same is true in their reporting of the prevalence of arithromycin-resistant S. aureus. Beautifully detailed papers are presented in the prior article on S. pneumoniae, but the table in this paper is very basic and uninformative.

While this study presents interesting and important data and is well-written, I feel like it suffers from comparison to the previous article by the same author on S. pneumoniae. It seems to have been less thoroughly investigated and much more briefly reported. I’m sure the author does not want to write the same paper twice, but I think the current paper would benefit from a more detailed exposition, and some explanation of why the authors chose to drastically cut the cohort and shorten the approach taken in the prior paper.

Reviewer #2: Interesting randomized controlled trial of staph resistance post azithromycin treatment. My concerns are mostly minor and easily addressable:

1. References 5-10. Your references highlight cross-sectional or longitudinal monitoring of AMR post azithromycin MDA. There are a large number of RCTs clearly showing selection of macrolide-resistant strains of pneumococcus after azithro MDA which were not referred to. If you’re not going to review that literature, consider just citing a recent systematic review (O’Brien Lancet ID, 2019).

2. Page 3, line 64. “To date, little work has been done … other bacterial pathogens.” A number of recent studies have looked at the gut resistome post azithromycin MDA. This is in a sense looking at AMR in all bacteria, so your sentence could be reworded. You could consider referring to them (starting w/ Doan, NEJM 2019 and 2020).

3. Line 102. While the nasopharynx may be ideal for pneumococcus, would the nares have been optimal for Staphylococcus aureus recovery?

4. False precision throughout the paper may mislead casual readers. Eg, Table 1. 25 of 193 is 12.95%? 13.0% or even 13% would be fine given the limited number of samples. Roughly an extra digit throughout the paper may mislead the reader. Similarly, P-values .602 could be .60.

5. Lines 147-150. “Carriage increased after AZ administration in both the AZ and placebo

6. groups with the increase being more marked and statistically significant in the AZ group (PR=1.46 [1.06; 2.01], p=0.020 than in the children who received placebo in whom the increase was not statistically significant (PR=1.21 [0.64; 2.30], p=0.558.” Please check the meaning of this sentence, I had difficulty parsing. The most relevant contrast would be the follow-up carriage comparing the children randomized to azithro- vs placebo. The longitudinal comparisons within an arm are not nearly as interesting, as carriage or resistance could change for any number of reasons other than your intervention.

7. Line 153. Consider rewording “comparable”. The CI is quite broad and includes values which many might not consider “comparable”, so better to just say unable to find a significant difference in this relatively small sample.

8. Lines 178-180. Consider highlighting the RCT comparison between arms rather than the longitudinal comparisons within an arm, which are not as informative.

9. Line 187. Consider rewording “significantly lower” to just “lower estimates”, as I’m not sure statistical significance could actually be tested in surveys with different methods in different countries at different times.

10. Line 197-199. Semicolon could be a comma? Your conclusion, that “it is essential that antibiotic resistance is monitored …” is certainly not warranted from the results of this study. In fact, you were unable to show an increase. You might say “may still be prudent to monitor”. Or you could say that the relatively wide CIs would suggest that further studies are necessary to better assess AMR. But I think the conclusion should reflect the study’s results, not opinion.

11. The Figure is completely redundant with the text. Just noting, fine to leave in if you feel it conveys information in a better way.

12. I understand that the azithromycin was the randomized intervention, but you were also giving multiple doses of the antibiotic sulfidoxine. You could consider mentioning that monitoring sulfa-resistance might also be of interest.

Reviewer #3: This is a fairly straightforward report of resistance in Staph aureus isolates from a randomized trial that assessed mass azithromycin distribution vs placebo in the setting of seasonal malaria chemoprevention. I have a few suggestions to clarify the reporting.

Line 82: I think this would be much clearer if phrased: “…children received SP/AQ for seasonal malaria chemoprevention, and were randomized to either azithromycin or placebo.” Or something like that. Because right now, it sounds like one group received SP/AQ plus azithro, and the other group got placebo.

Line 82: perhaps I missed it, but please provide some context about the study setting. How many villages contributed to the study? What types of villages? Is anything known about the antibiotic consumption in these villages or similar places of Burkina Faso? This is important for generalizability of the results.

Line 99: please provide some details about the random selection. The underlying trial randomized households to the treatments. Were swabs also performed on all kids from randomly selected households? Or a simple random sample? Were children all taken from a single village? How many villages? This is important because the topic is a transmissible infection, and both carriage and resistance will depend not only on the intervention but also on the interventions that siblings and neighbors get.

Line 136: this reads as if all 778 children received both swabs. But I don’t think this is the case? Consider clarifying the wording.

Line 152: the “prevalence” estimate would seem to use only those kids with Staph aureus carriage as the denominator. Is this actually a prevalence? Seems like it’s moreso a frequency among the children carrying Staph aureus? Also, it would be good to clarify for the reader what the denominator is (ie, all kids regardless of Staph aureus status, vs only those with positive Staph aureus results)

Line 155/160: if the estimates being compared are only from kids with a positive Staph aureus isolate, this means the clinical trial comparison would be conditioning on a post-randomization factor (ie whether the kid grew Staph aureus), which could induce bias. It would seem less biased to me to define resistance based on the entire random sample. At least for the RCT comparison.

Line 169: I always thought that the niche for Staph aureus was the nares. And yet here the nasopharynx was sampled. It might be nice to have a few sentences in the discussion about the site of sampling and whether nasopharyngeal carriage estimates would be similar to nares carriage estimates.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 13;16(10):e0257190. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257190.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Jul 2021

Dear Editorial Board,

Re: Revised manuscript Ref.: PONE-D-20-33805

Impact of mass administration of azithromycin as a preventive treatment on the prevalence and resistance of nasopharyngeal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus for publication in PLOS ONE

Revised manuscript titled

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript.

We appreciate the reviewers’ insightful comments and we have revised the manuscript accordingly as outlined in the attached responses.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

This is corrected

2. Please confirm that you have included all items recommended in the CONSORT checklist including identifying the study as a randomized trial in the title.

I confirm

3.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

the individual data from this study cannot be made public as there is no consent from the patients in this sense.

However, if a researcher wants to conduct research on the database, he or she submits a request to the research team, which will be submitted to the consortium to decide on the matter.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

4. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Georges-Anicet Ouédraogo

The author Georges-Anicet Ouédraogo has added

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: In this study, the authors examined whether mass drug administration of azithromycin induces antimicrobial resistance to S. aureus in children in Burkina Faso when administered with anti-malarial meds. Prevalence of the infection was also estimated before and after intervention. Data for this study were collected as part of a larger trial of 19,200 children in Burkina Faso and Mali. This secondary analysis of data from that study parallels a prior study by the lead author on resistance to Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Comments:

• Only children from Burkina Faso were included in this study. Why were data on children from Mali excluded?

Yes, only children from Burkina Faso were included because this study was ancillary to an RCT whose primary objective was to study the impact of azithromycin administration on the reduction of infant mortality and hospitalizations in Burkina Faso and Mali. The secondary objective was to study the impact of azithromycin administration on pneumococcus and antibiotic resistance in BF and Mali. In the context of a thesis in Burkina Faso, the data from this study (only in Burkina Faso) were used to look at the serotype circulation of pneumococcus in Burkina Faso, especially since the PCV13 vaccine had been introduced into the immunization program in the country one year before the intervention began. Having noted that the prevalence of pneumococcus was decreasing over the years, the idea was to look in parallel for staphylococcus in carriage to see if it might be behind a replacement of the carriage type. We did not have access to the samples from Mali to be able to do the research on staphylococcus as well.

Given that these data were derived from a published clinical trial which included roughly twice as many children, could the authors explain why only half the children were included? The study of resistance to S. pneumoniae included all children from both B.F. and Mali.

Due to budgetary constraints, we could not conduct the research on all the samples that were taken. We therefore considered it appropriate to do random sampling on half of the children to study the circulation of serotypes in the Burkina area. And this concerned the strains of pneumococcus isolated. On the other hand, for the search for Staphylococcus, this concerned all the children sampled in the last year of the study, i.e. 778 children.

Introduction

• It seems odd that this is not identified as a sub-study of one of the studies that is referenced (ll.53-56). Although this is mentioned in the Study Population section, I think that this information should be clearly stated in the introduction (rather than referring to the parent trial as if it were a separate study).

Added line 74

Methods

• Why were swabs from the third year only of the study included? Again, the study on S. pneumoniae contained data from all three years. Could the authors explain why they chose to limit the data to the third year only? The answer was given to the first question. Once again, this is an ancillary study to a trial and it is after having noted the presence of staph aureus during the two previous years that we wanted to really look at the prevalence of this germ, especially after having noted the decrease in the prevalence of pneumococcus with the administration of azithromycin.

• Although several studies have already been published from this trial, I still think it would be helpful to include some details about how the children were enrolled (in a dynamically stable cohort?) over the three-year period. In other areas as well, the paper would benefit from being a little more fleshed out with details, for those who have not read the other papers.

Completed line 84-94

Results

• ll.136-37 I found this somewhat confusing as written. A clearer description would include the numbers shown in Table 1: “A total of 385 children (193 in the Azithromycin group, and 192 in the placebo group) were swabbed in 2016 before the intervention, and 393 (192 in the Azithromycin group and 201 in the placebo group) were swabbed after the intervention.” Not all children were administered AZ, so it would be more correct if the authors referred to pre- and post-intervention, rather than pre- and post-administration of AZ.

This is done line 146

• As the authors stated that the primary objective of their study was to examine the prevalence of azithromycin-resistant S. aureus before and after the intervention, this section should precede the section on carriage with S. aureus (although that is what is stated in the Statistical Consideration section, in the introduction it is stated that the study “has examined the impact of azithromycin administration as a preventive treatment on the prevalence of S. aureus nasopharyngeal carriage and its resistance to azithromycin”). These two statements should be consistent with one another.

We have harmonised these statements line 130-133

• The authors compare rates of S. aureus carriage in the treatment and intervention groups both before and after the intervention. They also present rates before and after within the two groups. This is confusing, given that the first set of results are presented in Table 1 and the second set are not. Perhaps a table that clearly presented both sets of results could be substituted. The same is true in their reporting of the prevalence of arithromycin-resistant S. aureus. Beautifully detailed papers are presented in the prior article on S. pneumoniae, but the table in this paper is very basic and uninformative.

We have split the table in two: Table I: Socio-demographic characteristics of the study population Table II : Microbiological characteristics of the study population line 152 and 163

Reviewer #2: Interesting randomized controlled trial of staph resistance post azithromycin treatment. My concerns are mostly minor and easily addressable:

1. References 5-10. Your references highlight cross-sectional or longitudinal monitoring of AMR post azithromycin MDA. There are a large number of RCTs clearly showing selection of macrolide-resistant strains of pneumococcus after azithro MDA which were not referred to. If you’re not going to review that literature, consider just citing a recent systematic review (O’Brien Lancet ID, 2019).

Ok. Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health (PERCH) Study Group. Causes of severe pneumonia requiring hospital admission in children without HIV infection from Africa and Asia: the PERCH multi-country case-control study [published correction appears in Lancet. 2019 Aug 31;394(10200):736]. Lancet. 2019; 394(10200):757-779. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30721-4

2. Page 3, line 64. “To date, little work has been done … other bacterial pathogens.” A number of recent studies have looked at the gut resistome post azithromycin MDA. This is in a sense looking at AMR in all bacteria, so your sentence could be reworded. You could consider referring to them (starting w/ Doan, NEJM 2019 and 2020).

This is done and we added 2 references:

11. Doan T, Arzika AM, Hinterwirth A, Maliki R, Abdou A et al. (2019). Gut and Nasopharyngeal Macrolide Resistance in the MORDOR Study: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Niger. N EnglJ Med. 380(23):2271–2273.

12. Doan T, Worden L, Hinterwirth A et al. (2020). Macrolide and Non macrolide Resistance with Mass Azithromycin Distribution. N Engl J Med 2020. 383 :1941-1950

3. Line 102. While the nasopharynx may be ideal for pneumococcus, would the nares have been optimal for Staphylococcus aureus recovery? Staphylococcus carriage occurs both nasal (ideally) and nasopharyngeal.

In our study we used the nasopharyngeal swabs that had been taken for pneumococcus to also test for staphylococcus.

4. False precision throughout the paper may mislead casual readers. Eg, Table 1. 25 of 193 is 12.95%? 13.0% or even 13% would be fine given the limited number of samples. Roughly an extra digit throughout the paper may mislead the reader. Similarly, P-values .602 could be .60.

Corrected

5. Lines 147-150. “Carriage increased after AZ administration in both the AZ and placebo

6. groups with the increase being more marked and statistically significant in the AZ group (PR=1.46 [1.06; 2.01], p=0.020 than in the children who received placebo in whom the increase was not statistically significant (PR=1.21 [0.64; 2.30], p=0.558.” Please check the meaning of this sentence, I had difficulty parsing. The most relevant contrast would be the follow-up carriage comparing the children randomized to azithro- vs placebo. The longitudinal comparisons within an arm are not nearly as interesting, as carriage or resistance could change for any number of reasons other than your intervention.

We agree with you. The longitudinal comparisons within an arm are not relevant here. We have removed it. Line 163

7. Line 153. Consider rewording “comparable”. The CI is quite broad and includes values which many might not consider “comparable”, so better to just say unable to find a significant difference in this relatively small sample. This is done line 176

8. Lines 178-180. Consider highlighting the RCT comparison between arms rather than the longitudinal comparisons within an arm, which are not as informative.

9. Line 187. Consider rewording “significantly lower” to just “lower estimates”, as I’m not sure statistical significance could actually be tested in surveys with different methods in different countries at different times. This is done Line 210

10. Line 197-199. Semicolon could be a comma? Your conclusion, that “it is essential that antibiotic resistance is monitored …” is certainly not warranted from the results of this study. In fact, you were unable to show an increase. You might say “may still be prudent to monitor”. Or you could say that the relatively wide CIs would suggest that further studies are necessary to better assess AMR. But I think the conclusion should reflect the study’s results, not opinion.

Correction is done Line 217 and 222

11. The Figure is completely redundant with the text. Just noting, fine to leave in if you feel it conveys information in a better way.

We keep the figure

12. I understand that the azithromycin was the randomized intervention, but you were also giving multiple doses of the antibiotic sulfidoxine. You could consider mentioning that monitoring sulfa-resistance might also be of interest.

Thanks for the suggestion

Reviewer #3: This is a fairly straightforward report of resistance in Staph aureus isolates from a randomized trial that assessed mass azithromycin distribution vs placebo in the setting of seasonal malaria chemoprevention. I have a few suggestions to clarify the reporting.

Line 82: I think this would be much clearer if phrased: “…children received SP/AQ for seasonal malaria chemoprevention, and were randomized to either azithromycin or placebo.” Or something like that. Because right now, it sounds like one group received SP/AQ plus azithro, and the other group got placebo.

Everything was explained in the section Study Population and Methods line 88 to 101

Line 99: please provide some details about the random selection. The underlying trial randomized households to the treatments. Were swabs also performed on all kids from randomly selected households? Or a simple random sample? Were children all taken from a single village? How many villages? This is important because the topic is a transmissible infection, and both carriage and resistance will depend not only on the intervention but also on the interventions that siblings and neighbors get.

Detail about random selection added. Please to see in the section Study Population and Methods line (88 to 101)

Line 136: this reads as if all 778 children received both swabs. But I don’t think this is the case? Consider clarifying the wording.

All 778 children were sampled. A total of 385 children (193 in the Azithromycin group, and 192 in the placebo group) were swabbed in 2016 before the intervention, and 393 (192 in the Azithromycin group and 201 in the placebo group) were swabbed after the intervention. (Line 151)

Line 152: the “prevalence” estimate would seem to use only those kids with Staph aureus carriage as the denominator. Is this actually a prevalence? Seems like it’s moreso a frequency among the children carrying Staph aureus? Also, it would be good to clarify for the reader what the denominator is (ie, all kids regardless of Staph aureus status, vs only those with positive Staph aureus results)

Yes, it is indeed the positive carriage of Staph aureus as the denominator. The precision has been added. It is in this case effectively frequencies. (Line 174 and 181)

Line 155/160: if the estimates being compared are only from kids with a positive Staph aureus isolate, this means the clinical trial comparison would be conditioning on a post-randomization factor (ie whether the kid grew Staph aureus), which could induce bias. It would seem less biased to me to define resistance based on the entire random sample. At least for the RCT comparison. It is well noted.

Thanks for the input

Line 169: I always thought that the niche for Staph aureus was the nares. And yet here the nasopharynx was sampled. It might be nice to have a few sentences in the discussion about the site of sampling and whether nasopharyngeal carriage estimates would be similar to nares carriage estimates.

Yes, in our case the same nasopharyngeal swabs that were originally used for pneumococcus were used for staphylococcus diagnostic.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.odt

Decision Letter 1

Ray Borrow

26 Aug 2021

Impact of mass administration of azithromycin as a preventive treatment on the prevalence and resistance of nasopharyngeal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus

PONE-D-20-33805R1

Dear Dr. Ouangraoua,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ray Borrow, Ph.D., FRCPath

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ray Borrow

5 Oct 2021

PONE-D-20-33805R1

Impact of mass administration of azithromycin as a preventive treatment on the prevalence and resistance of nasopharyngeal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus    

Dear Dr. Hema-Ouangraoua:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Ray Borrow

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOC)

    S2 File

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.odt

    Data Availability Statement

    Data remain available upon request due to patient confidentiality and deposited in the MURAZ computing center. The data remains available on request from the data manager Mr Diallo Ibrahima at cdcmuraz@gmail.com or dikydiallo@gmail.com. There are no barriers to accessing the data. You just need to make the access request to the data manager who will request the co-authors to agree before sharing.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES