The shortest course is bad advice. When you do take antibiotics, you don't want to create antibiotic resistant bacteria.
That's why they tell you to always take the full course, even if you feel better.
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
63 points (81.8% liked)
You Should Know
33203 readers
72 users here now
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
tl;dr - Asking your doctor for the shortest reasonable course is a good thing that will both protect you as a patient as well as minimize your risk of antimicrobial resistance. But the key phrase is ask your doctor, do not take it upon yourself to decide when to stop them. Take whatever course you're prescribed.
Pharmacist and 4th year medical student with a passion for antimicrobial stewardship and infectious disease.
Historical treatment duration for most infections was truly quite arbitrary. Evidence for most infections, when it is actually tested, have pretty consistently demonstrated shorter treatment durations than were classically taught (10-14 days for pneumonia now generally 5-7, 14 days for Gram Negative Bacteremia now 7, etc). There is a subset of infectious disease doctors that are bucking the trend of historical "you have to complete your course advice" for some infections. In general, what I have seen is recommendations to discontinue antibiotics with significant clinical improvement AND a non-life-threatening infection in a non-sterile body cavity. So nobody is shortening course durations for empyemas or endocarditis.
The issue becomes expecting patients to know what constitutes clinically meaningful recovery and whether or not their infection is one of the "safe" ones to stop antibiotics earlier.
At the end of the day, I totally disagree with your premise, as we should always strive for the minimum safe antimicrobial exposure. However I do agree that telling patients "shorter is better" is bad advice because I don't want laypeople making these decisions when usually no-ID physicians don't make them.
That's wrong. Stop confidently spreading harmful misinformation. I already provided citations that you should have checked before making that statement: https://humanmicrobiome.info/antibiotics/
EDIT: And to all the people who upvoted the person I’m responding to, you should not be upvoting people who make medical/scientific claims without a citation, especially when they’re contradicting a highly reputable news source (NYT) that contains scientific citations and expert commentary.
The real information is to ask your doctor and be careful with advice from social media.
I would like to point out, the NYT is a reputable news site but cannot even remotely be trusted with medical information/recommendations. I can't tell you the last time I read a medical news piece from any source (and the NYT is the primary place I get my news) that I couldn't read it and say "well that's a gross oversimplification" or worse "this is blatantly misrepresenting the scientific author's conclusions". Holding up the NYT as a source of medical/scientific truth is just demonstrating how scientifically illiterate you really are.
Wow, projecting hard with that comment. This is a fantastic and well-cited article, and your comment does nothing to debunk anything in it, and you end with a baseless "you're scientifically illiterate" comment. Amazing.
Hello all, I'm a pharmacist and 4th year medical student with a passion for antimicrobial stewardship and infectious disease. Just wanted to share my overall thoughts on the article.
The author's point of "finding out if you really need an antibiotic" is honestly one of the central issues in modern antimicrobial resistance coming from two fronts: patients who demand an antimicrobial for a non-indicated reason, and doctors who for various reasons excessively prescribe antibiotics. I could wax on this for hours, but at its core, the single most important thing we can do to decrease antimicrobial resistance is decreasing total antimicrobial exposure. That means fewer prescriptions for shorter courses of narrow-spectrum antibiotics. Unfortunately every bit of this requires more buy-in from patients and more work from clinicians.
To go along with my point above, asking your doctor to make sure you're getting the shortest possible duration is the single best thing you as a patient can do to help with these issues (other than just not demanding antibiotics if your doctor says no, but that's a low bar). The key word here is ask though. There's a huge amount of clinical experience and evidence that is used to determine when it is safe to stop antibiotics. And as much as I believe in patient autonomy and educating my patients, frankly antibiotic selection/course duration is not something the general public is capable of independently making decision on. Ask your doctor, and take what they prescribe for how long they're prescribed for, and if you have issues then call them to discuss it.
With regards to probiotics, it's an interesting topic that we don't have a ton of great data for and physicians are fervently behind or against them in my experience. The fact is we just don't know enough about them, and most aren't regulated well enough to give good information about them. Interestingly, there was a recent study which suggested higher rates of central line infections with the organisms in the probiotics in individuals given probiotics while they had a line in place.
Lastly, I think I have to disagree with Dr. Blaser. Medicine doesn't overvalue antibiotics. We certainly underestimate their risks, but antibiotics are some of the most effective and life-saving medications we as a species have ever developed. Countless lives have been saved solely from their development, and very very few therapies have a NNT as low as appropriate antimicrobial therapy. They truly are astonishingly good medications when they are indicated. The issue is simply prescribing them when they aren't indicated, which is a big part of why we're in the mess we're in, and is in large part driven by underestimating the risks they pose.
Some relevant info I shared yesterday:
Resistance can be solved by restoring lost microbes with FMT: https://humanmicrobiome.info/antibiotics/
That's not exactly true. FMT isn't going to fix your MRSA colonization, and it doesn't inherently remove resistance genes from the population of bacteria in your gut. If those genes produce a survival disadvantage, they may be selected against and become a minor serotype in your GI tract, but that doesn't mean that it is eradicated.
Also, you seem to be sharing a lot of links from humanmicrobiome.info, which I would advise against. While I can appreciate the primary author's dedication to the topic and willingness to cite his sources, his website is not peer reviewed, and he explicitly states he is a proponent of FMT, introducing bias which is not being balanced by a peer review process. Not to mention he admits he is a layperson with no formal medical training/experience. I would direct you to IDSociety.org which is the home of the Infectious Disease Society of America, who publishes the actual guidelines used by infectious disease physicians in North America.
MRSA is actually covered in the cited links. Here's one for example https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/6/7/ofz288/5522275.
The gut microbiome regulates the entire body, including the immune system and other body site's microbiomes https://humanmicrobiome.info/systemic. You can see what a great resource it is -- very handy to provide categorized citations.
his website is not peer reviewed
Anyone is welcome to contribute and peer review it.
Yes, it covers intestinal colonization with MRSA. Unfortunately Staph aureus is an uncommon GI pathogen, and the majority of detrimental infections secondary to MRSA come from skin-flora translocation to produce surgical site infections/blood stream infections, as well as translocation from the nares into the lungs to produce pneumonia. We thankfully have another method of nares decolonization. While metallobetalactamase producing Pseudomonas is mentioned as well, I have a very low suspicion that FMT would be useful for resistant Pseudomonal pneumonia or diabetic foot infections/osteomyelitis. FMT certainly has a role to play in ID, particularly for enteric gram negatives and VRE within the alimentary canal, but is not a cure-all for antimicrobial resistance.
For anyone wondering, FMT = Fecal Microbiota Transplants.
It's exactly what it sounds like; through oral or rectal.
I imagine burping after taking it through the oral route would be a special kind of horrible
I tried to find other studies going into this in more detail, especially in regards to targetted antibiotics.
Am I correct in assuming that the future hence lies in getting antibiotics far more target-specific? I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but over here broad-spectrum antibiotics are already used as a last-ditch effort, usually when there's no time to truly figure out what a patient is suffering from because of their extremely bad overall state. But I assume broader antibiotics are more common around the world?
The trouble is that, as a whole, antibiotics that work against resistant organisms are inherently more broad. Bacteria develop resistance by either mutating the target site of an antibiotic, decreasing/removing the expression of a target site, increasing removal of the drug from the bacterial cell, or preventing entrance to the cell.
These changes are relatively antibiotic agnostic (in the sense that they do not target one specific antibiotic, they target a general chemical structure which is shared among a class of antibiotics), and in most cases, if you develop a drug which is able to circumvent one of these problems, it will continue to work on the wild-type bacteria of that species (by definition making it broader). I am unaware of any antimicrobial which is effective against drug-resistant organism which has no efficacy against the wild-type of that organism.
I agree with the other poster that phage therapy likely represents a future avenue for antimicrobial resistance. Unfortunately antibiotics will (at least for the foreseeable future) be required as to effectively use phage therapy you must identify the organism and then select appropriate phages which will kill the bacteria, which takes time that a sick patient may not have without antibiotics. We also haven't quite figured out how to keep our immune system from eradicating the bacteriophages, particularly for infections requiring longer treatment such as endocarditis.
There is a currently existing technology which allows for genetic identification of bacteria and fungi in positive blood cultures approximately 1 day faster than classical methods of culture and biochemical testing. There is active research into changing these tests slightly to be able to function on other body fluids (pus, pulmonary secretions, urine, etc) as well as to be able to function on fresh blood samples instead of waiting 1-2 days for the culture to become positive from bacterial growth, but these technologies are not ready for clinical use, and until they are, broad spectrum antibiotics will be a necessity.
as to effectively use phage therapy you must identify the organism and then select appropriate phages which will kill the bacteria, which takes time that a sick patient may not have without antibiotics
Phage cocktails, FMT, etc... Also, we should get better at speeding that process up if we fund research for it, but we've been instead continuing to rely on antibiotics.
We also haven’t quite figured out how to keep our immune system from eradicating the bacteriophages
Citation? I don't recall that being a thing... phages are ubiquitous in the human body. As much or more so than bacteria. They are the natural way bacteria are kept in check.
Section 2, first paragraph. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6956183/
At their core phages are viruses, there is no reason to expect the host immune system to not recognize them as foreign and attempt to eradicate them outside the GI tract, where most serious infections occur. The GI tract, skin, and to some extent the lower UG tract will likely tolerate these through mechanisms we tolerate colonizing bacterial flora, but colonization, even with antibiotic resistant organisms, is not a primary indication for empiric treatment for eradication. In fact there are some studies that attempting to sterilize the UG tract in colonized asymptomatic women promote symptomatic UTI.
These colonizations become problematic when growth becomes unchecked and infection develops, or they seed infection into another compartment. There is no reason to think something as foreign as a bacteriophage wouldn't be recognized as foreign in a sterile space (kidneys for pyelonephritis, liver abscess from migrated gut flora, endocarditis, etc) where these serious infections occur.
This ties in nicely with your suggestion of phage cocktail therapy. Yes, that can expedite the delivery of phages, however excessive use of phages could result in anti-phage antibodies, limiting future treatment in a method similar to the development of anti-drug antibodies in epoeitin analogues, insulin therapy, antivenin, and anti-inflammatory antibody therapies like adalimumab (Humira)
IMO the future lies in replacing antibiotics with adding instead of subtracting: phages/phage cocktails, FMT, etc. There's also a massive amount of antibiotic overuse for a variety of reasons, including public ignorance about their necessity (lack of) and harms, and emotional thinking and lack of consequences for people in the medical system.
Phages were given up on because antibiotics were an easier solution and the consequences aren't always immediately obvious. But that decision has likely played a major role in getting to the current chronic disease crisis.
Sounds interesting.
I will say that having had two eye infections, one resulting in a surgery and the other being solved with antibiotics before it got to bad, give me all the antibiotics, I don't care, before you make me get that surgery again. Straight outta Saw, that shit. But that's an edge case of course.
Thanks for sharing!
Other relevant communities
Yep, I crossposted to two of those already. Feel free to x-post to the medicine one if you want.
Thanks :) I'll try to get to it next time I'm on desktop
Probiotics are basically a meme. Fiber is the new hot thing as unsurprisingly your gut biome wants to eat not new neighbours to compete with.
Fiber won't re-add the microbes that antibiotics killed off. Neither will probiotic supplements, but some of them are proven to be beneficial. https://humanmicrobiome.info/probiotic-guide