When should you take antibiotics

[sammyboyfor]

http://theconversation.com/when-shou...ibiotics-42751

Antibiotic-resistant superbugs are on the rise and we’re being urged to forgo antibiotics wherever possible to limit their spread. But serious bacterial infections can only be dealt with effectively using these drugs.

So when should you take antibiotics? The easy answer, of course, is when your doctor tells you to. But there’s more to it.

We know that rates of bacterial resistance track antibiotic usage rates. So, as a community, the more we take these drugs, the more likely we are to have superbugs down the line. And Australia may face a bleak future in these terms.

Antibiotic myths and facts

The Australian government’s 2015-2019 National Antimicrobial Resistance Strategy highlighted some interesting, if somewhat disturbing, facts:

• a 2014 poll of Australian workers showed 65% believed taking antibiotics would help them recover faster from a cold or flu

• 20% of people expect antibiotics for viral infections, such as a cold or the flu

• nearly 60% of GPs surveyed would prescribe antibiotics to meet patient demands or expectations

• surgical prophylaxis (giving antibiotics before or during surgery to minimise the risk of infection) is used in 41% of cases, which is much higher than the recommended best practice of less than 5%.

Clearly, we still don’t understand that antibiotics won’t kill viruses responsible for the flu and many common colds. And a majority of doctors take a seemingly lackadaisical approach to antibiotic stewardship. It’s no surprise then that the 2013 National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey showed 30% of antibiotic prescriptions were inappropriate.

Antibiotics are amazing drugs that can prevent serious harm and stop infections becoming fatal. They’re often used for:

• lung infections, which include bacterial pneumonia and pertussis (whooping cough)

• urinary and genital infections, some of which are sexually transmitted

• eye infections (conjunctivitis)

• ear, nose and throat infections (otitis, sinusitis and pharyngitis)

• skin infections (from impetigo in schoolchildren through to more serious diabetic foot ulcers)

• diarrhoea and more serious gut infections, such as those caused by Clostridium difficile.

Antibiotics are often used for serious gut infections, such as those caused by Clostridium difficile. Francisco Bengoa/Flickr, CC BY-NC

In general, a patient will be given antibiotics if her symptoms are severe (a high fever or skin rash, for instance, or inflammation spreading around an infection site); she has a higher risk of complications (such as an elderly patient with suspected pneumonia); or if the infection is persistent.
Getting it right

To prescribe, the doctor makes an educated guess as to what may be causing the infection. This is based on knowledge of what type of bacteria are normally found in these cases and, if available, the patient’s history. But she doesn’t know exactly what type of bug is causing the infection. In the absence of an accurate diagnosis, as well as to minimise potential risk to the patient, a broad-spectrum antibiotic is used to “cover as many bases” as possible.

Until we can develop point-of-care technology that can identify a bug on demand, such broad-spectrum drugs (the grenade approach to bacteria) are a better option for doctors than targeted specific drugs (a sniper against superbugs). But the latter is the better long-term option for the patient and the community, although it may not always work.

One key problem with broad-spectrum “grenade” antibiotics is that they can cause collateral damage by killing a lot of good bacteria. We now know that we have about a kilogram and a half of good bacteria in our guts that help us digest food. They also “crowd out” potential nasty infections caused by bad bacteria.

There are cases where patients on antibiotics end up with diarrhoea, thrush (a vaginal infection caused by Candida that goes wild when protective bacteria are wiped out), or nasty infections, such as Clostridium difficile, that can lead to severe colitis.

And it gets worse: a recent Danish study that followed more than a million patients found an association between frequency of antibiotic use and Type II diabetes, generating considerable media interest. It found people who received more than four courses of the drugs over 15 years were 53% more likely to develop diabetes.

Of course, there’s the cause-effect corollary. People who were already heading towards the disease may simply have been less healthy, more prone to infection, and hence had more visits to the doctor to get antibiotics. The study showed an association between antibiotics and diabetes, not causality.

So where do we stand now? Remember bacterial infections can kill, and antibiotics save lives, so if you’re really feeling crook, go to your doctor and take her advice. But also think twice. If you have a bad cold or think you have the flu, remember this may be due to a viral infection. And using antibiotics could do you more harm than good in the longer term.

The real game changer in all of this will be a “tricorder” diagnostic that can identify a bug on site. With such a technology, a doctor could prescribe the right drug, the first time, in time. So be sensible about using antibiotics and let’s keep our eyes on this prize.

[IAmAwesome]

Originally Posted by sammyboyfor

taking antibiotics would help them recover faster from a cold or flu

I always thought this was true, but now i know better

[Big Sexy]

not only that sam....i read somewhere, there wasn't any new effective antibiotics drugs for the past 30 years, and they were only able to invent new effective ones recently.

if we continue to abuse the use of the wonder drug, the human race will get into real trouble very soon.. scary isn't?

Originally Posted by sammyboyfor

http://theconversation.com/when-shou...ibiotics-42751

Antibiotic-resistant superbugs are on the rise and we’re being urged to forgo antibiotics wherever possible to limit their spread. But serious bacterial infections can only be dealt with effectively using these drugs.

[sammyboyfor]

Originally Posted by Big Sexy

if we continue to abuse the use of the wonder drug, the human race will get into real trouble very soon.. scary isn't?

From an ecological standpoint, it is probably a good thing to have some new mass epidemics to reduce the world's population.

When the AIDS virus appeared on the scene, I was hoping that it would reduce Africa's population by 60% in order for the wildlife a fighting chance for long term survival. Sadly this has not happened.

It would be great if China, Africa, India and the Middle East were struck by a deadly epidemic that wiped out most of the population. The world would then be a far better place when the dust finally settled.

[IAmReallyNotGay]

Originally Posted by Big Sexy

if we continue to abuse the use of the wonder drug, the human race will get into real trouble very soon.. scary isn't?

Scary indeed

[Big Sexy]

US fast-food meat still mostly raised on antibiotics: consumer groups
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...m/2127422.html

Most large U.S. fast-food chains still serve meat from farm animals that have been routinely fed antibiotics, consumer groups said in a new report, which concluded that many companies have not yet laid out plans to curb the practice.

LOS ANGELES: Most large U.S. fast-food chains still serve meat from farm animals that have been routinely fed antibiotics, consumer groups said in a new report, which concluded that many companies have not yet laid out plans to curb the practice.

Subway, Starbucks, KFC and Domino's Pizza were among the industry leaders graded "F" for their antibiotic policies in the report from consumer and health groups, titled "Chain Reaction," released on Tuesday.

The groups, which did not release results to companies prior to publication, based their grades on public statements, survey responses and correspondence with individual chains. As a result, companies given failing grades were not immediately able to comment.

An estimated 70 percent of antibiotics important to human health are sold for use in meat and dairy production.

Concern is growing among public health experts that the overuse of such drugs, particularly those important to human medicine, are contributing to rising numbers of life-threatening human infections from antibiotic-resistant bacteria dubbed "superbugs."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 2 million people are infected with drug resistant bacteria each year and 23,000 die.

"From bacon cheeseburgers to chicken nuggets, most meat served by America's chain restaurants comes from animals raised in industrial-scale facilities, where they are routinely fed antibiotics to prevent disease that is easily spread in crowded, unsanitary, stressful conditions," said Kari Hamerschlag, a lead author of the report who is senior program manager at Friends of the Earth.

Subway was cited, in particular, for failing to publicly state a policy or plan to cut antibiotic use in the meats it buys, despite repeated requests by the report's authors for clarification.

Chipotle Mexican Grill and Panera Bread, were top finishers with "A" grades. These popular chains have won loyal followings for policies that include strict limits on antibiotic use.

Chick-fil-A, which is making meaningful progress toward its goal of only buying chicken raised without antibiotics by 2019, got a "B" in the report.

McDonald's Corp and Dunkin' Donuts got "C" grades. McDonald's plans to only source chicken raised without antibiotics important to human medicine by 2017. Dunkin' Donuts aims to prohibit suppliers from using medically important antibiotics or antimicrobials in healthy animals, but it has not set a timeline.

(Reporting by Lisa Baertlein in Los Angeles; Editing by Richard Chang)

[IAmReallyNotGay]

Originally Posted by Big Sexy

they are routinely fed antibiotics to prevent disease that is easily spread in crowded, unsanitary, stressful conditions

Really an eye opener

[OrTeh]

Originally Posted by Big Sexy

if we continue to abuse the use of the wonder drug

I guess the bugs are getting stronger

[elvenskin]

my mum told me taking to much antibiotics is not good as it weaken my immune system.
True?

[sammyboyfor]

Originally Posted by elvenskin

my mum told me taking to much antibiotics is not good as it weaken my immune system.
True?

What is your mum's definition of "too much"?

[sammyboyfor]

Originally Posted by sammyboyfor

What is your mum's definition of "too much"?

No advice????

[fulham]

Originally Posted by elvenskin

my mum told me taking to much antibiotics is not good as it weaken my immune system.
True?

From what I understand, when you take antibiotics, you must complete the full course, else the bacteria will become resistance in your body.

[OrTeh]

Originally Posted by sammyboyfor

What is your mum's definition of "too much"?

Maybe he means more than an entire recommended full course?

[PPGirl]

Originally Posted by sammyboyfor

What is your mum's definition of "too much"?

Probably his mum unable to advise him

Originally Posted by fulham

From what I understand, when you take antibiotics, you must complete the full course, else the bacteria will become resistance in your body.

This is normally what doctor advises us.
But normally i will forgotten to eat the last 2 or 3 dosage.
So i dun bother anymore. Since no take for 1 to 2 days but i will still recover

Is it true that if u have the same virus/bacteria in ur body next time, the antibotics prescribed will be stronger?
I understand some doctor dun really prescribe antibotics but some even prescribe for very minor sickness. Its too common till i questioning myself y am i taking antibotics each time?
Sometimes even doctor prescribe but i didnt follow
But i will still recover.

[Big Sexy]

GSK to profile new class of antibiotic at Nov. 3 investor day
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...s/2211936.html

British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline will profile its drug development pipeline, including a new class of antibiotic, on Nov. 3, its chief executive said on Thursday.

LONDON: British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline will profile its drug development pipeline, including a new class of antibiotic, on Nov. 3, its chief executive said on Thursday.

The event in New York - the company's first investor day centred on drug development for more than a decade - will profile medicines from a pipeline that is 80 percent first-in-class, Andrew Witty said in a public interview at the Chatham House think-tank in London.

It will include an update on its Type 2 topoisomerase inhibitor drug candidate, which is in the Phase II stage of development, according to Witty.

He said that only two new classes of antibiotics - drugs which treat bacterial infections - had been discovered in the past 40 years. "We have a third one," he said.

(Reporting by Paul Sandle; Editing by Mark Heinrich)