Antibiotic Resistance: Eye Infections

Antibiotics, their misuse and the risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria, have been things I have blogged about before at some length (e.g. here). My main focus has been the misuse of antibiotics in agriculture: the routine use of antibiotics in animal feed. This practice is considered one of the main reasons why there has been such an increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria in recent years.

But an article on BBC discussing medical treatments that are known to be ineffective reminded me of another source of selective pressure for the evolution of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria: misuse of antibiotics in people.

As a parent, I know full well the dread one feels when a child's eye starts looking red and oozy. That discharge in the corner of the eye tells you it is that dreaded ailment known as "pinkeye." Nothing to do but stay home from work and try to get a doctor's appointment...and start washing your hands like you have OCD to prevent spreading the germs.

You finally get to see the doctor, he takes one look, declares it pink eye...then prescribes antibiotics.

And therein is the problem. Antibiotics don't really work for pinkeye...it is a waste of money, effort in giving the poor mite drops, and it adds to the selective pressure for the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria, creating an actual health hazard.

Why do I say antibiotics don't work? Well, the majority of cases of pinkeye are caused by a virus. Antibiotics don't work against viral pinkeye. There is no reason at all to give antibiotics for viral pinkeye. The viral form has a more watery discharge, not green or yellow in color. If you child's pinkeye has a watery discharge, don't even bother with antibiotics. They do NOTHING except add to a growing health hazard, and viral pinkeye resolves itself in 7-10 days with no problems. It is, however, highly contageous in its early stages. It really is a good idea to avoid all contact with your eyes and to wash your hands like you have OCD.

What about bacterial pinkeye? In this case there is some logic to using antibiotics since antibiotics do affect bacteria. But first, how do you tell when it is bacterial? If the discharge is greenish or greenish-yellow rather than watery, it is probably bacterial. Anytime you see green or yellow discharge, that is a strong hint that your body is reacting to a bacteria because one of the immune cells that responds to bacterial infections is the neutrophil. These cells contain high doese of a protein called myeloperoxidase, a copper-containing protein that is part of the cell's anti-bacterial arsenal. Neutrophils respond in huge numbers to bacterial infections, and they act kind of like the Kamikaze pilots of the immune system, dying as they kill invading bacteria. The large number of dead and dying neutrophils are green because of the copper in the myeloperoxidase protein. Think of an old penny: turns green right? That is the copper oxidizing. Same happens with the copper atom in myeloperoxidase. So if the discharge is green, it means bacterial.

Problem is, it doesn't matter. Even with BACTERIAL pinkeye, there is no real evidence that antibiotics work to shorten the illness. According to an Oxford study, even in children with bacterial pinkeye, the cure rate did not differ significantly, 85% cured in 7 days for the antibiotic-treated group, compared to 80% for the placebo treated group. That means antibiotics don't really help if your child has pink eye! Again, all you are doing is adding to a growing health risk, antibiotic resistant bacteria.

So, eating meat that specifically says "raised without antibiotics" and not using antibiotics for pinkeye are two good ways you can help limit the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. This does not mean you should not see a doctor if a child has pink eye. If for no other reason that the doctor may find other secondary infections that need treatment. But ASK your doctor if an infection is viral, and if so, don't use antibiotics: it is a waste of time andm money.


mole333's picture

| |

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 1774 guests online.

Words to live by

I of all people should know better. The civil rights movement in the U.S. told women to stop talking about gender issues because first the fight against racism had to be won. The feminist movement frowned at women of colour raising their issues, insisting that first the fight against the patriarchy had to be won. The nationalist movements in Africa insisted that feminism was a corrupt and decadent western import, and that first we had to capture our earthly kingdoms, and achieve our panAfricanist Nirvana, before we started looking at "side issues". And those of us who are interested in our contemporary political dynamics have fallen into the same pit of not tackling the prickly, the uncomfortable questions now: we are waiting to win the larger battle before we clean our house. There is always another battle or another issue, and the matters that matter to the foot soldiers are postponed for yet another day. Yet, these issues ARE the battle. We fight for freedom --and do not imagine we are doing anything less--because it is the freedom to live our lives the way we want, from the jobs we choose to the people we fall in love with. If we cannot tackle them, then we are not equipped to tackle anything. What are the lines of difference we draw? For what do we engage, argue, participate and in some heroes' cases, take awful risks? For what?


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify