Open Access

Erythromycin for prokinesis: imprudent prescribing?

  • Martino Dall'Antonia1Email author,
  • Mark Wilks2,
  • Pietro G Coen3,
  • Susan Bragman4 and
  • Michael R Millar5
Critical Care200510:112

Published: 19 December 2005


Problems with antibiotic resistant bacteria are increasing in the hospital and particularly in the intensive care unit. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Acinetobacter baumanii and extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing Gram-negative bacilli constitute a therapeutic and infection control challenge. Early enteral feeding improves survival in patients in the intensive care unit. Prokinetic agents are routinely used in patients with inappropriate gastrointestinal motility. The use of erythromycin at sub-therapeutic doses as a prokinetic agent is a cause of concern for the following reasons: it can increase the emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance and the likelihood of Clostridium difficile disease. The use of an antibiotic as a prokinetic agent does not constitute prudent antimicrobial prescribing and should be avoided. Alternative agents, whenever possible, should be used.

There are increasing problems with antimicrobial resistant bacteria in intensive care. Some examples include Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing Gram-negative bacilli and Acinetobacter baumanii. There is overwhelming evidence that the use of antibiotics is a driving factor for the emergence of resistance [1]. This problem is particularly severe in intensive care areas where antibiotic use is high. Does the current practice of prescribing of erythromycin for prokinesis constitute prudent use of antimicrobials [2]?

The mechanisms by which antibiotic use can increase antibiotic resistance have been reviewed by Lipsitch and Samore [3] and include: selecting in favour of resistant strains; creating colonization opportunities for resistant strains (assuming competition between resistant and susceptible strains); and encouraging an increased colonisation 'load'. In addition, antibiotic use can more rarely select in favour of the emergence of de novo resistance.

The predominant MRSA strains in the UK are resistant to erythromycin. We recently conducted an observational carriage study that supported the view that MRSA and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus strains compete for colonisation space in the anterior nares [4]. Thus, exposure to macrolides has the potential to alter the composition of the resident bacterial microbiota in the anterior nares, leading to selection of MRSA. In support of this, treatment with slow release clarithromycin has been shown to eliminate nasal carriage of S. aureus [5]. This would leave patients more susceptible to colonisation and infection with MRSA.

Berg and co-workers [5] also showed that treatment with a macrolide increased macrolide resistance in the oropharyngeal flora. This effect was still present at an eight weeks follow up.

Erythromycin as a prokinetic agent is used at sub-therapeutic doses, which particularly promotes selection of mutational resistance [1, 6].

Hospitals in North America and Europe are experiencing a rise in C. difficile infections in the inpatient population caused by a strain (NAP1/027) that is characterized by increased toxin production [7]. C. difficile strains isolated from UK hospitals are resistant to several antibiotics, including erythromycin [8]. In addition, the transfer of erythromycin resistance to sensitive C. difficile strains has been linked to simultaneous acquisition of a gene homologous to C. difficile toxin A in nontoxigenic strains of C. difficile [9].

Early enteral feeding improves outcome in critically ill patients by increasing gut blood flow and gut function, improving wound healing and reducing septic complications. Early nutrient intake (within 24 to 48 hours of admission) is now recommended [10]. Inappropriate gastrointestinal motility may cause macro- or micro-aspiration of the gastric contents into the lower respiratory tract, which may act as a risk factor for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Motility agents are routinely prescribed in patients with high gastric content, identified by high volume of fluids aspirated from the nasogastric tube [11]. The prokinetic agents available have been reviewed [12], although a subsequent commentary highlighted the lack of any large methodological studies on which to base treatment recommendations [10]. In addition, there is little evidence from clinical trials that erythromycin used as a prokinetic agent improves the outcome of patients in intensive care.

Although benefits of early enteral nutrition are evident, there is lack of evidence to support the use of erythromycin. Other prokinetic agents like metoclopramide are available, and new agents are under investigation [13]. Metoclopramide is recommended by the Canadian Critical Care Society [11].

Prudent use of antibiotics is an essential component of any strategy aimed at reducing the spread of antimicrobial resistance and health care associated infections [14].

The use of sub-inhibitory concentrations of erythromycin as a prokinetic agent contributes to the antibiotic burden, is likely to lead to the spread of antimicrobial resistance in the intensive care unit and may increase the likelihood of C. difficile-associated disease.

This practice is incompatible with the principle of 'prudent antimicrobial prescribing' and should be reserved only for patients in whom alternative agents are contraindicated.


Authors’ Affiliations

Microbiology Consultant, Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust
Clinical Scientist, Department Microbiology and Virology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts and the London NHS Trust
Hospital Epidemiologist, Infection Control Office, Department of Microbiology, The Windeyer Institute of Medical Sciences, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust
Microbiology Consultant, Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust
Microbiology Consultant, Department of Medical Microbiology, Barts and the London NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital


  1. Livermore DM: Minimising antibiotic resistance. Lancet Infect Dis 2005, 5: 450-459. 10.1016/S1473-3099(05)70166-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Seventh Report[]
  3. Lipsitch M, Samore MH: Antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance: a population perspective. Emerg Infect Dis 2002, 8: 347-354.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dall'Antonia M, Coen PG, Wilks M, Whiley A, Millar M: Competition between methicillin-sensitive and-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the anterior nares. J Hosp Infect 2005, 61: 62-67. 10.1016/j.jhin.2005.01.008View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg HF, Tjhie JH, Scheffer GJ, Peeters MF, van Keulen PH, Kluyt-mans JA, Stobberingh EE: Emergence and persistence of macrolide resistance in oropharyngeal flora and elimination of nasal carriage of S. aureus after therapy with slow-release clarithromicin: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004, 48: 4138-4188. 10.1128/AAC.48.11.4183-4188.2004View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Carsenti-Dellamonica H, Galimand M, Vandenbos F, Pradier C, Roger PM, Dunais B, Sabah M, Mancini G, Dellamonica P: In vitro selection of mutants of Streptococcus pneumoniae resistant to macrolides and linezolid: relationship with susceptibility to penicillin G or macrolides. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005, 56: 633-642. 10.1093/jac/dki301View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Warny M, Pepin J, Fang A, Killgore G, Thompson A, Brazier J, Frost E, McDonald LC: Toxin production by an emerging strain of Clostridium difficile associated with outbreaks of severe disease in North America and Europe. Lancet 2005, 366: 1079-1084. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67420-XView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. John R, Brazier JS: Antimicrobial susceptibility of polymerase chain reaction ribotypes of Clostridium difficile commonly isolated from symptomatic hospital patients in the UK. J Hosp Infect 2005, 61: 11-14. 10.1016/j.jhin.2005.01.020View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mullany P, Wilks M, Tabaqchali S: Transfer of macrolide-lin-cosamide-streptogramin B (MLS) resistance in Clostridium difficile is linked to a gene homologous with toxin A and is mediated by a conjugative transposon, Tn5398. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995, 35: 305-315.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Doherty WL, Winter B: Prokinetic agents in critical care. Crit Care 2003, 7: 206-208. 10.1186/cc1849PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Canadian Critical Care Society: Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nutritional Support in Mechanically Ventilated, Adult Critically Ill Patients. Toronto. 2003.Google Scholar
  12. Booth CM, Heyland DK, Paterson WG: Gastrointestinal promotility drugs in the critical care setting: a systematic review of the evidence. Crit Care Med 2002, 30: 1653-1654.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Talle NJ, Tack J, Peeters T: What comes after macrolides and other motility stimulants? Gut 2001, 49: 317-318.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Health: Winning Ways: Report from the Chief Medical Officer. London. 2003.Google Scholar


© BioMed Central Ltd 2005