Empiric azithromycin alters the upper respiratory microbiome and resistome without anti-inflammatory benefit in COVID-19

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Azithromycin is a widely used antibiotic and was frequently used to treat hospitalized patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of empiric azithromycin use on the respiratory microbiome in patients with viral respiratory infections is unclear. Here we used longitudinal metatranscriptomics on nasal swabs from a prospective multicentre cohort of 1,164 patients hospitalized for COVID-19. We compared the upper respiratory microbiome, resistome and systemic immune response in patients treated with azithromycin ( n  = 366) with those who received no antibiotics ( n  = 474) or other antibiotics ( n  = 324). We found that azithromycin altered microbiome composition and increased the expression and relative proportion of macrolide/lincosamide/streptogramin (MLS) resistance genes. These changes occurred after 1 day of exposure and persisted for over a week. MLS resistance gene expression was associated with commensals and potential pathogens, while there were no differences in host inflammatory gene expression in blood and airways. This demonstrates that empiric azithromycin treatment impacts the upper respiratory microbiome and resistome without apparent anti-inflammatory benefit.

Article activity feed

  1. Verónica Lloréns-Rico

    Review 2: "Empiric Azithromycin in COVID-19 Impacts the Respiratory Microbiome and Antimicrobial Resistome without Anti-inflammatory Benefit"

    Reviewers praised the study’s design and insights but raised concerns about data depth, processing, and analysis methods.

  2. Steven Taylor

    Review 1: "Empiric Azithromycin in COVID-19 Impacts the Respiratory Microbiome and Antimicrobial Resistome without Anti-inflammatory Benefit"

    Reviewers praised the study’s design and insights but raised concerns about data depth, processing, and analysis methods.