It is a widely accepted fact that stopping a course of antibiotics mid way can cause the pathogens to get immunity from the effects of the drug, causing them to become more invincible than before. This fear makes doctors push patients to finish the course of antibiotics prescribed to them. However, here's the good news.
If one in three antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary, then let’s focus on stopping them before we start. Where there is evidence that shorter courses of antibiotics are as effective as longer ones, then we need to ensure that physicians are prescribing according to best practices.
While acknowledging that further research is needed to determine the optimal duration of treatment for many infections, the authors encourage policy makers, educators and physicians to drop the “finish the course” message in favour of emphasizing the harms of antibiotic overuse and a shift towards more patient-centred decision making.
But last week, in an article in the Medical Journal of Australia, Professor Gwendolyn Gilbert of the University of Sydney wrote: “There is a common misconception that resistance will emerge if a prescribed antibiotic course is not completed.”
According to Hicks, scientists have come to realize that the larger problem is that antibiotics affect not only the bacteria causing the infection but also the trillions of other bacteria that live in and on your body. “We have more bacteria in our body than human cells,” she says.
Regimens are based on clinical studies done when the drugs were first tested, Boucher said. Newer, more refined studies often reveal more effective lengths that strike the balance between killing the bacteria causing an infection and not flooding the environment with more antibiotics.
Worse, by not finishing, you might contribute to the dangerous rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The advice to always finish your antibiotics has long been considered medical dogma, and can be seen today on the websites of the World Health Organization, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other leading health authorities.
The idea that stopping an antibiotic treatment early encourages antibiotic resistance is not supported by scientific evidence, he said. Moreover, having everyone finish their antibiotics all the time may actually be increasing antibiotic resistance worldwide, because it's the taking of antibiotics for longer than absolutely necessary ...
Boucher said she agrees with the BMJ authors' stance that "completing the course" merely for the sake of lowering the risk of antibacterial resistance is not based on solid scientific evidence. She added, however, that doctors don't often know when a shorter course of antibiotics is as effective as a longer one.
If you wind up with leftover antibiotics, don’t hang on to them . Discard unused antibiotics by returning them to the pharmacy or a community take-back program. Or mix the medication with an unpalatable substance such as coffee grounds or kitty litter, seal it in a bag, and throw it out with the household trash.
If you have been fever-free for 24 to 48 hours and are feeling significantly better, “it’s reasonable to call your doctor and ask if you can stop your antibiotic,” she says. And be reassured that “stopping short of a full course of antibiotics won’t worsen the problem of antibiotic resistance,” Peto says.
The idea that people need to take all their antibiotics, even after they’re feeling better, is based in part on outdated notions about what causes antibiotic resistance, says Lauri Hicks, D.O., a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and head of the agency’s Get Smart: Know When Antibiotics Work program.
Plus, the longer you take antibiotics, the more likely you are to wipe out the “good” bacteria in your intestines, Hicks says. That leaves you vulnerable to infection from the bacterium clostridium difficile, or C. diff, which can cause dangerous inflammation, abdominal cramping, and severe diarrhea, and can even be deadly.
Talk to Your Doctor About Antibiotics. About one-third of antibiotics prescribed in doctors’ offices are unnecessary, according to a recent report from the CDC. Doctors commonly prescribe these drugs for upper-respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis, colds, and the flu.
In those cases, it's usually important to finish all the medication prescribed for you. However, for less serious illnesses, such as pneumonia, a sinus infection, or a urinary tract infection, you may not need to finish, Hicks says.
According to Hicks, scientists have come to realize that the larger problem is that antibiotics affect not only the bacteria causing the infection but also the trillions of other bacteria that live in and on your body. “We have more bacteria in our body than human cells,” she says.
And as many people with respiratory tract infections don’t need antibiotics in the first place, because the infection is not actually caused by bacteria, stopping them is perfectly safe.
Doctors vary in the length of antibiotic regimes they prescribe, with five-day courses for urinary tract infection still being used even though the evidence shows that two to three days is sufficient for an uncomplicated infection.
The solution. It’s complicated. It depends what you have been given antibiotics for. Gilbert says that stopping them prematurely will not directly increase the risk of resistance – that more commonly happens with prolonged treatment on suboptimal doses.
Professor Chris Del Mar, professor of public health at Bond University in Queensland, agreed, saying that, for most acute chest and urine infections, GPs should tell patients to stop taking the tablets once they feel better.
But last week, in an article in the Medical Journal of Australia, Professor Gwendolyn Gilbert of the University of Sydney wrote: “There is a common misconception that resistance will emerge if a prescribed antibiotic course is not completed.”.
Historically, courses of antibiotics were based on fears of undertreatment, and less about overuse. The idea that there should be standard course of antibiotics hasn’t been shown to be valid, owing to different patient and disease factors.
Also, according to the AVMA, Denmark's ban on the daily use of antibiotics in food and water has led to an increase in mortality on pork and poultry farms, and also led to an increase in the use of therapeutic antibiotics (for example, the use of Tetracyclines increased by 30% after the ban).
Well 80% of all antibiotics used in the US are fed to animals, so it's hard for me to imagine that incremental changes in practice recommendations in marginal cases could have as much impact as that.
According to the above links, 45% of the antibiotics used for livestock are not approved for human use, while another 42% are rarely used in human medicine (Tetracyclines, for example) since better drugs have been developed.
Antibiotic resistance is different to insecticide or herbicide resistance in that many of the resistance genes occur on plasmids, rather than the main bacterial genome. These plasmids are readily shared across bacteria in the environment.
This size discrepancy creates a risk for use in stockfeed to result in horizontal gene transfer to human pathogens. Australia has taken the option of not allowing certain antibiotic classes to be used in stockfeed resulting in lower rates of human pathogens with resistance to those antibiotics.
However, the idea that stopping antibiotic treatment early encourages antibiotic resistance is not supported by evidence, while taking antibiotics for longer than necessary increases the risk of resistance. This is a narrative review and not a systematic review of the literature.
The typical end-points for trials of antibiotics are patient cure or improvement and microbiological eradication. Monitoring the fraction of resistant bacteria in an infection during or after a course of treatment is rarely done. The development of resistance is usually not incremental.
Instead, a new antibiotic agent is compared to an existing one, and if it appears no worse than the existing agent, it is deemed “non-inferior” and is approved on that basis. Antibiotics are too safe.
taking the correct dose at the appropriate intervals , may be more important for treatment success than taking an antibiotic for a long period of time.
The association between antibiotic use and resistance is complex, however, longer courses of antibiotics have been associated with the greatest risk of antimicrobial resistance at both an individual and community. level. 1, 14 Increased antibiotic use exerts a selective pressure for the development of resistance by eliminating ...
The choice and duration of antibiotic treatment should be based on the most up to date national or local antibiotic guidelines and local antibiotic susceptibility data, taking into account the patient’s symptoms and signs, site of infection, co-morbidities, immune status and possible pathogens.
In conclusion: patient education is most important. Stopping antibiotics when symptoms have substantially resolved appears to be effective and safe for many patients, especially those who are unlikely to have a bacterial infection or who have a self-limiting bacterial infection.
Although dependent on the individual clinical scenario, it has been suggested that stopping antibiotics earlier than a standard course might be considered for patients with moderate pneumonia, sinusitis, urinary tract infections, cellulitis or other substantial skin infections. For these patient groups, the main considerations ...
The argument is that stopping antibiotic treatment once the patient’s symptoms have resolved is a reasonable course of action in many situations, and is not likely to lead to relapse or promote antimicrobial resistance.
In contrast, beta lactam antibiotics ( e.g. amoxicillin, cefalexin) are “time-dependent” antibiotics and the drug concentration needs to be above the minimum inhibitory concentration for the specific pathogen for a sufficient duration of time to achieve the greatest efficacy. 2.