Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 10, Number 8—August 2004
Research

Antimicrobial Drug Use and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Aberdeen, 1996–2000

Dominique L. Monnet*, Fiona M. MacKenzie†Comments to Author , José María López-Lozano‡, Arielle Beyaert§, Máximo Camacho§, Rachel Wilson†, David Stuart†, and Ian M. Gould†
Author affiliations: *Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark; †Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, Scotland; ‡Hospital Vega Baja, Orihuela (Alicante), Spain; §University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain

Main Article

Table 4

Estimated multivariate Polynomial Distributed Lag (PDL) model for monthly %MRSA (R2=0.902)a

Explaining variable Lag (mo.) Direct effectb
Indirect effectc
Sum of both effectsd
Coeff T-stat p Coeff Coeffe T-stat p
%MRSA
1
0.420
3.96
0.0003




Macrolide use








Each month
1
0.083



0.083
4.02
0.0003

2
0.055


0.035
0.090
5.34
<0.0001

3
0.027


0.038
0.065
6.02
<0.0001

4



0.027
0.027
3.16
0.003
Overall
1–3
0.165
4.02
0.0003





2–4



0.100




1–4




0.265


Third-generation cephalosporin use








Each month
4
0.116



0.116
2.75
0.009

5
0.087


0.049
0.136
3.27
0.002

6
0.058


0.057
0.115
3.70
0.0007

7
0.029


0.048
0.077
3.91
0.0004

8



0.032
0.032
2.75
0.009
Overall
4–7
0.290
2.75
0.009





5–8



0.186




4–8




0.476


Fluoroquinolone use








Each month
4
0.170



0.170
3.43
0.002

5
0.085


0.071
0.156
3.37
0.002

6



0.066
0.066
2.31
0.03
Overall
4–5
0.255
3.43
0.002





5–6



0.137




4–6




0.392


Constant –36.7 –4.42 0.0001

aMRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
bPast %MRSA as well as past use of these three antimicrobial drug classes had direct effects on %MRSA. These direct effects diminished the longer the lag time.
cBecause every increase in %MRSA by the value 1 was followed the next month by a significant increase in %MRSA by the value 0.420, use of the three antimicrobial drug classes also had indirect effects on the %MRSA. As 0.420 is <1, these indirect effects necessarily vanished over time. As an example, decreasing indirect effects are only presented for a few months. There were substantial indirect effects of macrolide use up to month 8 (final coefficient for sum of both effects = 0.284), of third-generation cephalosporin use up to month 12 (final coefficient for sum of both effects = 0.499), and of fluoroquinolone use up to month 11 (final coefficient for sum of both effects = 0.440).
dEach month, the total effect of each class of antimicrobial on the %MRSA resulted from the sum of the direct and indirect effects.
eThe estimated coefficients indicate the values by which the %MRSA would increase in response to an increase in 1 DDD per 1,000 patient-days for each of the three significant antimicrobial classes, when all other variables remain constant. Since the average figure for monthly patient-days at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary is 22,800, 10 DDD per 1,000 patient-days correspond to approximately 230 DDD per month or thirty 7- to 8-day antimicrobial courses. For example, an increase in macrolide use by 10 DDD per 1,000 patient-days on a certain month, or 30 more patients treated with a macrolide as compared with the previous month, would lead to a direct increase in %MRSA by 0.83, 1 month later, by 0.55, 2 months later and by 0.27, 3 months later. The total direct effect would therefore be evident after 3 months, amounting to an increase in %MRSA by the value 1.65. Additionally, %MRSA indirectly attributable to macrolide use would increase by the value 0.35 (i.e., 0.83 x 0.42) after 2 months and by 0.38 (i.e.. [0.83 x 0.42] + [0.55 x 0.42]) after 3 months. From the 4th month onwards, there would be no direct effect of macrolide use on the %MRSA, only ever-decreasing indirect effects that would practically disappear after 8 months (decreasing effects in months 5 to 8 not shown).

Main Article

Page created: March 01, 2011
Page updated: March 01, 2011
Page reviewed: March 01, 2011
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external