The arsenal of antibiotics strong enough to sq
问题详情
The arsenal of antibiotics strong enough to squelch nasty bacteria is rapidly dwindling worldwide, which makes worried infectious-disease doctors more intent than ever that the drugs be deployed only when strictly needed.
These specialists know that every antibiotic carries its own risks, and that the more frequently and broadly a drug is used, the more likely it is that harmful microbes will develop tricks to sidestep it. But a team of researchers in the Netherlands, where a more selective use of antibiotics has led to much lower levels of resistant bacteria than are circulating in the United States, thinks the medical finger-waggers have not gone far enough.
"As doctors, we&39;ve paid a lot of attention to questions of which antibiotics we should use to treat what sorts of infections, but have focused much less on how long that treatment should last," said Dr. Jan Prins of the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam.
In a small but provocative study published in the June 10 issue of the British medical journal BMJ, Dr. Prins and colleagues from nine hospitals suggested that even some cases of pneumonia — a potentially life-threatening disease — could be treated with a three-day course of antibiotics, rather than the conventional 7- to 10-day treatment.
The Dutch study analyzed the cure rates of 186 adults who had been hospitalized with mild to moderately severe pneumonia. All received three days of intravenous amoxicillin to start. After that, the 119 who were showing substantial improvement were randomly divided into two groups; about half continued with another five-day course of oral amoxicillin, and the others got look-alike sugar pills. Neither the patients nor the doctors knew who was getting which treatment until the end of their participation in the study.
By the end of treatment, roughly 89 percent of the patients in each group were cured of their lung infections without further intervention. In a commentary accompanying the study, Dr. John Paul, a microbiologist at Sussex County Hospital in Brighton, England, writes that, at least for a subset of patients with uncomplicated, community-acquired pneumonia, the finding "suggests that current guidelines recommending 7-10 days should be revised."
As lead investigator of the Dutch study, Dr. Prins was not ready to go quite that far. He cited the study&39;s small size and the seriousness of the illness as a reason to wait until the finding is independently replicated before advising a wholesale change in practice.请帮忙给出正确答案和分析,谢谢!
参考答案
正确答案:
全球范围内,关于大量使用抗生素足以消灭可恶的细菌的说法正快速失势,这引起了治疗传染病医生的担心,他们比以前更加关注药物在急需情况下的使用情况。这些专科医生知道每种抗生素都存在风险。一种抗生素,使用地越频繁,越广泛,那么有害的微生物越有可能耍花招,避开它的影响。不过荷兰的一组研究人员认为人们对医学的认识还有待提高,与美国周而复始地使用抗生素不同,荷兰对于抗生素的使用更有选择性,这样细菌的抵抗力就更弱。阿姆斯特丹学术医学中心的简·普润思医生说:“对医生而言,我们把精力大都放到了何种感染病应该使用何种抗生素治疗,而很少关注治疗的疗程。”
7月10号版的英国医疗杂志发表了一篇短小却颇具煽动性的研究报告,其中普润思医生和9家医院的其他医生声称对于肺炎这种对生命存在潜在威胁的疾病而言,有一些仍可以用抗生素进行为期3天的治疗,而不需用7-10天的传统方法治疗。
荷兰的这项研究对186名成人的肺炎治愈率进行了分析,这些人都住在医院,而且患有比较严重的肺炎,治疗前三天都接受了阿莫西林的静脉注射。之后,将出现明显好转的119名患者随机分为2组;其中一组继续进行另一项为期5天的疗程——口服阿莫西林,而另一组则口服糖衣药片之类的药品。研究结束前,患者和医生都不知道哪组进行的哪项治疗。
治疗结束后,每组中大约89%的肺炎患者得到治愈,无需接受进一步的治疗。在同时进行的另一项评论性研究中,英国布莱顿苏塞克斯医院的微生物学家约翰·保尔医生写道——至少对一部分没有并发症的社区获得性肺炎病人来说,现行的7-10天的治疗方针要做修改。
作为这项研究的首席研究员,普润思医生还不准备这么做。他认为应该等到这一研究发现再次被独立验证后,才建议对治疗进行大规模变更,原因是他所作的研究范围较小,而且肺炎的危害程度不大。