Antibiotic Linked To Intestinal Disorder In Infants
The September, 2001 issue of the Journal of Pediatrics reports that giving infants the antibiotic erythromycin, especially within the first two weeks of life, can increase their chances of developing an intestinal disorder that likely will require surgery.
The disorder, called infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (IHPS), occurs when the tube leading from the stomach to the small intestine (the pyloris) becomes enlarged, blocking the stomach's outlet. This results in projectile vomiting, dehydration and weight loss. IHPS is the most common cause of abdominal surgery in infancy. The researchers also found that there may be a link between IHPS and a mother using the antibiotic during the last 10 weeks of pregnancy as well. The study also saw some evidence that two related antibiotics, azithromycin and clarithromycin may also be linked to IHPS.
Microbes eat away at antibiotics
Mon Sep 30, 7:34 AM ET
Anita Manning USA TODAY http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/
20020930/en_usatoday/4491909
SAN DIEGO -- In the battle between bugs and drugs, the bugs are scoring some big wins.
Scientists here at an international meeting of the American Society for Microbiology warn that disease-causing microbes are becoming immune to a growing list of antibiotics, and new antibiotics and vaccines are barely keeping ahead of them.' There are patients today in hospitals for whom there are no effective therapies,'' says Gary Doern, director of clinical microbiology at the University of Iowa, a panelist at a briefing here of the International Forum on Antibiotic Resistance.
Until recently, almost all drug-resistant bacteria were confined to hospitals, where a concentration of sick people and high antibiotic use contributed to the evolution of strains capable of evading antibiotic attack. Now, Doern says, it's not uncommon for patients to come in the door carrying drug-resistant microbes that are circulating in the community. Among concerns highlighted by doctors at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy:
* Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, accounts for more than half of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections caused by staph. In some cities, 31% of such infections outside the hospital are methicillin-resistant, and in nursing homes, 71% of staph infections are MRSA.
* In some areas, about 50% of Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of diarrhea, are resistant to Cipro.
* About a third of the germs most commonly responsible for severe pneumonia, Streptococcus pneumoniae, are resistant to penicillin in the USA, and about 25% are resistant to multiple drugs.
* Resistance to fluoroquinolones, a newer class of drugs, also is on the rise. Researchers in Toronto reported Sunday that in 2001, 1.2% of the S. pneumoniae bacteria in Canada were resistant to levofloxacin, a fluoroquinolone introduced in 1996, compared with 0.9% in 2000 and 0.4% in 1999.
''We are living in a time where increasing drug resistance is frustrating treatment of common infections,'' says Roger Finch, professor of infectious diseases at England's University of Nottingham. ''It is having an impact on hospitals and forcing us to use (antibiotics) we might have kept in reserve'' to use only against the most persistent infections.
Antibiotics wipe out bacteria that are susceptible to them. But when used improperly, they can encourage the growth of bacteria that have adapted to them. And because bacteria can swap genes under the right conditions, drug-resistant germs can share their resistance mechanisms with other germs.
That is what is thought to have happened in the case of a Michigan woman reported this summer. She acquired the USA's first case of Staphylococcus aureus, a common bloodstream and skin infection, that was impervious to the antibiotic vancomycin, says Michael Rybak of Wayne State University in Detroit. Vancomycin has been known as the drug of last resort; it is used to treat infections that don't respond to other drugs. But in recent years, it has been used so often that intestinal bacteria called enterococci have become resistant.
The Michigan patient already was infected with vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and those microbes might have passed their drug-resistance mechanisms to the staph bacteria, creating what doctors call a ''superbug.''
As bacteria evolve resistance to more classes of antibiotics, drug companies are racing to create new ones. Rybak presented data Saturday showing that a drug being developed by Cubist Pharmaceuticals, daptomycin, was effective against vancomycin-resistant S. aureus. Company officials say the drug has been tested in more than 2,500 patients, and they hope it will be reviewed for licensing within a year. In other studies, researchers reported that another new antibiotic, telithromycin, is effective in treating drug-resistant pneumonia.
Though new antibiotics are welcome, doctors say that unless patients and health care professionals learn to use them more carefully, the bugs will continue to outsmart the drugs. Education strategies in hospitals and in communities, aimed at both doctors and patients, are achieving success in reducing overuse and misuse of antibiotics, researchers say. ''If we use antibiotics, some level of antibiotic resistance will emerge,'' Doern says. To slow that down, ''we should use antibiotics only when needed, and, when needed, use the right one.''
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030309/D7PLRVSO0.html>
Sharp Jump Seen for Drug-Resistant Germs \
Mar 9, 5:28 PM (ET)
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID WASHINGTON (AP) - Drug-resistant germs are on the rise in the United States and experts predict a sharp jump in the strains of a dangerous form of strep that can overcome two common antibiotics. By the summer of 2004, as many as 40 percent of the strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae could be resistant to both penicillin and erythromycin, researchers warn. That form of strep causes thousands of cases of meningitis, sinusitis, ear infections and pneumonia every year.
Researchers based at the Harvard School of Public Health studied reports from sites in eight states, measuring how common the drug resistance was in 1996 and how it increased by 1999. Penicillin resistance rose from 21.7 percent of strep strains in 1996 to 26.6 percent in 1999, and for erythromycin it increased from 10.8 percent to 20.2 percent, the team reports in a paper appearing in Monday's online edition of the journal Nature Medicine.
The report provides further support for arguments against unnecessary antibiotic use, said Marc Lipsitch, one of the researchers. For years, public health experts have warned that overuse of antibiotics - often when they are not needed - is leading to more and more drug-resistant bacteria.
For example, many people demand antibiotics when they have a cold, even though colds are caused by viruses, which are not affected by antibiotics. Just last month the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to require a new warning on antibiotics, pointing out that overusing them makes them less effective. Doctors must be sure a patient is suffering a bacterial infection, not a virus with similar symptoms, before prescribing antibiotics, the warnings say. The government estimates that half of the 100 million antibiotic prescriptions written in physician offices each year are unnecessary.
The new research "puts it on the doctor's plate," said Dr. Donald Low of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto. "Can we change the future? Yes, there are things we can do, but can we do them quickly enough?"Doctors need to make the decision to use antibiotics the right way, in the proper dose, he said, and to encourage vaccination, which reduces illness and thus the need for antibiotics. Vaccines against that form of strep are recommended for infants and older persons, the two groups most likely to get the infection.
Germs resistant to just one of the antibiotics can still be killed by the other, so the researchers project either a slow growth or a decline for these bacteria. But using a new statistical formula that takes into account how the bacteria are transmitted, the researchers forecast rapid growth for strains of S. pneumoniae that are resistant to both of the antibiotics, reaching 40.6 percent by the summer of 2004. That's up from just 8.6 percent in 1996.
"That's a bit of a chilling message," said Low, who was not part of the research team. "Within a year and a half, we'll know whether they're right or wrong," he said. If the technique works, it will be a valuable tool in the future, he added.Dr. Allison McGeer, also at Mount Sinai, added: "We have always known this is what will happen to resistance unchecked, and there is no reason to believe that their predictions will not come true."
February 25, 2003 Volume 39 Issue 08
Baby's gastro trouble linked to mother's antibiotic use Reconsidering use of Clavulin could reduce risk of neonatal necrotising enterocolitis
By Jenny Manzer
SAN FRANCISCO – Use of the antibiotic amoxicillin/clavulanate potassium (Clavulin) during pregnancy dramatically raises the risk of neonatal necrotising enterocolitis, according to a large case-control study from Ireland. A team of researchers from Coombe Women's Hospital in Dublin studied data spanning 1990 to 2002, which included almost 90,000 deliveries. They found 160 confirmed cases of neonatal necrotising enterocolitis, a potentially fatal gastrointestinal disorder commonly found in preterm babies. Cases were matched to controls according to their week of gestation. Detailed medical records of both groups were analysed retrospectively.
The researchers found women who had taken amoxicillin/clavulanate had more than a four-fold increased risk of having the complication compared to controls. Among the women whose babies had the gastrointestinal disorder, 12.5% had taken amoxicillin/clavulanate antenatally, either on its own or with another antibiotic. In the control group, only 3% of women had received amoxicillin/clavulanate. "The necrotising enterocolitis in particular just can happen so rapidly. So I think the more work that's done to prevent this complication, the better," said lead author Julie Grantham, a research midwife.
"The other thing is that a lot of women are put on antibiotics antenatally, and you wonder—are they really necessary?" Results showed women with multiple pregnancies were also at increased risk, and were about five times more likely to have the diagnosis. The association with amoxicillin/clavulanate remained significant after researchers controlled for confounding variables. The association with multiple pregnancies remained highly significant. The mean gestational age of babies who developed neonatal necrotising enterocolitis was 33 weeks' gestation, compared to 33 weeks, five days gestation in the control group.
The Dublin data support findings from the randomized Oracle trials I and II, which investigated antibiotic use for preterm rupture of the membranes and spontaneous preterm labour. The Oracle trial also found amoxicillin/ clavulanate was associated with an increased incidence of neonatal necrotising enterocolitis. The broad-spectrum antibiotic is among the top-selling pharmaceuticals in Canada and the U.S. It is used to treat a range of conditions, including respiratory, urinary tract and sinus infections.
Neonatal necrotising enterocolitis occurs when the infant's bowel becomes colonized by bacteria, which in turn causes necrosis of the bowel. The disorder can result in the infant needing a bowel resection, and can be fatal. Dr. Gideon Koren, director of the Hospital for Sick Children's Motherisk program, said the Irish study strengthens the Oracle findings and makes causation seem more likely.
"I think based on these two (studies) it makes a lot of sense not to choose Clavulin as a first-line drug when you treat prelabour rupture and similar conditions," he said, speaking from his Toronto office. "Although we still don't know the mechanisms, there is a chance that particular antibiotics change the flora of the gut of the babies more than others." Dr. Koren said the disorder, which is usually seen in premature babies, is not uncommon. "Neonatal necrotising colitis is a terrible, terrible condition. Babies die." The Coombe Women's Hospital is a tertiary centre receiving transfers from all over Ireland, with about 7, 500 deliveries a year.
http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=20030219_175323_3456
Strep Strains Becoming More Resistant to Drugs Experts Caution Against Antibiotic Overuse By Randolph E. Schmid Associated Press Monday, March 10, 2003; Page A09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2553-2003Mar9.html
Drug-resistant germs are on the rise in the United States, and experts predict a sharp increase in the strains of a dangerous form of strep that can overcome two common antibiotics. By the summer of 2004, as many as 40 percent of the strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae could be resistant to penicillin and erythromycin, researchers warn. That form of strep causes thousands of cases of meningitis, sinusitis, ear infections and pneumonia every year. Researchers based at the Harvard School of Public Health studied reports from sites in eight states, measuring how common the drug resistance was in 1996 and how it increased by 1999.
Penicillin resistance rose from 21.7 percent of strep strains in 1996 to 26.6 percent in 1999, and for erythromycin it increased from 10.8 percent to 20.2 percent, the team reports in a paper appearing in today's online edition of the journal Nature Medicine. The report provides further support for arguments against unnecessary antibiotic use, said Marc Lipsitch, one of the researchers. For years, public health experts have warned that overuse of antibiotics -- often when they are not needed -- is leading to more drug-resistant bacteria.
For example, many people demand antibiotics when they have a cold, even though colds are caused by viruses, which are not affected by antibiotics. Just last month the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to require a new warning on antibiotics, pointing out that overuse makes them less effective. Doctors must be sure a patient has a bacterial infection, not a virus with similar symptoms, before prescribing antibiotics, the warnings say. The government estimates that half of the 100 million antibiotic prescriptions written in physician offices each year are unnecessary.
The new research "puts it on the doctor's plate," said Donald Low of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto. "Can we change the future? Yes, there are things we can do, but can we do them quickly enough?" Doctors must use antibiotics the right way, in the proper dose, he said, and encourage vaccination, which reduces illness and thus the need for antibiotics. Vaccines for that form of strep are recommended for infants and older people, the two groups most likely to get the infection.
Germs resistant to just one of the antibiotics can still be killed by the other, so the researchers project either a slow growth or a decline for these bacteria. But using a new statistical formula that takes into account how the bacteria are transmitted, the researchers forecast rapid growth for strains of S. pneumoniae that are resistant to both of the antibiotics, reaching 40.6 percent by the summer of 2004. That's up from 8.6 percent in 1996.
"That's a bit of a chilling message," said Low, who was not part of the research team. "Within a year and a half, we'll know whether they're right or wrong." If the technique works, it will be a valuable tool in the future, he added. Allison McGeer, also at Mount Sinai, added: "We have always known this is what will happen to resistance unchecked, and there is no reason to believe that their predictions will not come true."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Soil based organisms boost immunity
April 10, 2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83782,00.html
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Hepatitis. Smallpox. Shingles. Lyme Disease. The threat of serious infectious diseases affecting our nation is real. Many physicians prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics for infectious diseases with unknown etiology partially because the patient demands it and because these super drugs can kill a wide range of bugs, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports.
It is interesting to note that because wide spectrum antibiotics have been so widely prescribed for lesser bugs that survivor germs actually gain strength and spread, making these super drugs ineffective against not only survivor germs but the survivor germs of future generations. The CDC has made this bacterial resistance to the super drugs one of their top concerns. If the super drugs don’t work now what will we do against serious strains of deadly bacteria and other pathogens in the years to come? Perhaps we should look to nature for the answer.
As a first line of defense against foreign invaders nature has given us thousands of beneficial microorganisms that line the gastro-intestinal (GI) tract which play out a wide variety of functions essential to good health. Eating foods that are contaminated or undercooked will be immediately attacked by these scavenger "good critters". Proper utilization, digestion, and elimination of foods, the manufacturing of necessary vitamins and hormones, are a few benefits of these "good bacteria". In addition to these naturally occurring bacteria other bacteria found in soil also provide a wide array of health stimulating benefits without any toxic side effects. In the late 1970’s an American scientist named Peter Smith began conducting phased studies on huge colonies of soil-based organisms (SBO’s). What he found is that these SBO’s produce very specific immune responses in both humans and animals.
Normally there are hundreds of thousands of beneficial bacteria lining the GI tract but a diet high in sugar or low in soured milk products like yogurt or consuming high amounts of alcohol, chlorinated and fluoridated water, all contribute to largely reducing and eliminating these good bacteria. When a patient sees a physician for an infectious disease of unknown etiology the doctor will generally prescribe antibiotics which cannot distinguish between good and bad bacteria, destroying both.
Receiving radiation therapy and using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) like Motrin, Advil, Midol, etc. are deleterious to this microbial balance, a condition called "sterile gut". Without this first line of defense present any ingested pathogenic organism, or any bad bacteria, virus, fungus, amoeba, protozoa, worm, or yeast, and the toxins they produce, can cause harm to their host. Introducing SBO’s as a part of a healthy lifestyle can rectify the delicate microbial balance in the GI tract, giving your immunity a much needed shot in the arm.
A product known as Nature’s Biotics contains both SBO’s and friendly bacteria. Once taken this combination quickly passes to the intestines where it multiplies and forms colonies. Once established it produces the correct environment to absorb nutrients and dislodges putrefaction left lingering behind from improper elimination thereby relieving constipation over night. In addition to this first line of defense are some remarkable immune-stimulating actions. The body’s own natural production of alpha-interferon, a key regulator of human immune response, is stimulated, thereby increasing viral resistance.
This is remarkable since scientists have failed to reproduce alpha-interferon (recombinant) in the laboratory that can yield the same beneficial effects naturally occurring interferon generates. Secondly, these good critters stimulate B-Lymphocyte and non-addressed anti-body production. This is important because these non-addressed antibodies are waiting in reserve to be used whenever needed by any specific invader by being imprinted by the immune system.
A third benefit of Nature’s Biotics includes production of lactoferrin in the human body. Lactoferrin is an important iron-binding protein responsible for retrieving iron from the foods we eat and delivering iron wherever it is needed. Many iron deficiencies are not due to lack of iron in the diet but rather iron assimilation and increased lactoferrin production could resolve this problem. Unbound iron in the body also provides a feeding ground for pathogens to flourish.
Perhaps the health benefits of SBO’s are too many to list but others include cellular self-repair, production of anti-oxidants, and correction of nutrient absorption deficiencies. Nature’s Biotics can be purchased on the web through www.lifescienceproducts.com or a similar product called Primal Defense at Back to Earth health food store at 1315 E. Main St., Torrington. With the recent onslaught of serious infectious illnesses like SARS and the inefficacy of wide spectrum antibiotics, keeping our immune systems running at a high level should be a top concern for everyone at this time. Since many infectious diseases and parasite infestation can cross-over from species to species, giving our pets SBO’s is a consideration. Looking to nature and using soil based organisms as a regular part of a healthy lifestyle can be one answer to this call to battle.
Susan Hill has been involved professionally with health, well-being and personal development for over 17 years, her column appears Thursdays in The Register Citizen.
©The Register Citizen 2003
(Source: British Medical Journal, 2003; 326: 357-60).
USELESS ANTIBIOTICS: The superbugs are winning the day (and the herbs are being banned)
The day of the superbug, resistant to every kind of antibiotic, gets ever nearer. Researchers have been assessing the effectiveness of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin in intensive care units in the USA for the past decade-and it makes for worrying reading. They have found that in the six years until 2000 it declined from an 86 per cent effectiveness to just 76 per cent-and the researchers lay the blame squarely at the door at persistent antibiotic overuse.
Within the intensive care setting, the most common antibiotics are the fluoroquinolones, commonly prescribed for the treatment of urinary tract infections and pneumonia. As with food infections, there are good herbal remedies to treat these problems-but we forgot, they're banning them, aren't they? (Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2003; 289: 885-8).
Bacteria Caught Passing Information To Each Other
By Tim Radford Science Editor
The Guardian - London 4-29-2
British scientists have caught bacteria in the act of passing information to each other - even when separated by a plastic wall. The discovery could throw new light on the spread of antibiotic resistance in hospitals.
Mathematical physicist Alan Parsons and biologist Richard Heal, work for QinetiQ - formerly the Ministry of Defence science laboratory - at Winfrith in Dorset They report in the Journal of Applied Microbiology that they grew separated colonies of bacteria, one in an ordinary nutrient, one in a dish of food that had been spiked with antibiotic. At first, the medicinally-treated bacteria began to die. If they were totally sealed off from the healthy bacteria next door, they would all die. But if there was a small gap through which air could pass between the two colonies, the ailing bacteria would recover.
The only conclusion could be that the healthy, stable bacteria next door were sending their stricken cousins some kind of survival advice - in the form of information about antibiotic resistance. "If these unstressed bacteria are present then we find that the bacteria that are attacked by the antibiotic actually do not die. A large proportion of them survive and they begin to recover," Professor Parsons said.
"It happens in a few hours. We first discovered this a year ago and have done a great many controlled tests to throw out other possibilities." "We have only tried it on two bacteria that happened to be available. It worked with both. But there are obviously thousands of other strains and species we haven't tried.
"We don't know if this thing exists between the pathogenic bacteria that hospitals are interested in. This is something we would like to find out. It would be surprising if they did not have some similar capacity." The means by which bacteria pass messages to each other is so far unknown. The guess is that signals could be carried by airborne molecules released by microbes.
Prof Parsons and Dr Heal speculated that bacteria were sending electromagnetic signals to each other, but ruled out this possibility after they found that the effect only occurred when the two colonies were linked by a passage of air.
Winfrith is a centre for research into naval sonar and underwater acoustics. The two scientists had been experimenting with bacteria as "living sensors" which could register acoustic pressure. The discovery that the microbes could signal to each other through the air was completely unexpected. If confirmed in experiments with the kind of infectious bacteria that spread pneumonia or blood poisoning, or other life threatening illnesses, the discovery could have profound consequences.
But there was a twist. The two scientists found the same result when they used three kinds of antibiotics - but not with a fourth variety, from a different class. "So clearly, some antibiotics are effective against the signal, and some not," said Prof Parsons. "It is absolutely fascinating and astonishing. I don't have a picture of it yet. We don't know what the signal is, we don't know how it activates the resistance mechanism in the stressed bacteria. That has to be sorted out. We are very keen to pursue this further."
* Bacteria reproduce by dividing. This can happen every 15 minutes. In a day and a half, with sufficient food, one microbe's progeny could outweigh the Earth.
* Around 20bn E coli grow in the intestine of every human being every day.
* The total number of bacteria on Earth is estimated to exceed 5m trillion trillion.
* Certain species are able to withstand fierce radiation, flourish in boiling water, survive at sub-zero temperatures, multiply in acid or alkali, and eat concrete.
* Bacteria have been found underneath polar ice, in stratospheric clouds, and in rocks far below the ocean floor.
* Antibiotic resistance is now a worldwide problem. Strains of three life-threatening microbe are now resistant to more than 100 antibiotics.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4403319,00.html
Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh). 1981 Oct;49(4):259-65. Related Articles,Links
Methyl mercury decomposition in mice treated with antibiotics.
Seko Y, Miura T, Takahashi M, Koyama T.
The role of intestinal flora in the decomposition and faecal excretion of methyl mercury was studied in mice treated with antibiotics. The antibiotics, neomycin sulfate and chloramphenicol, were given to mice in drinking water for six days before intraperitoneal administration of methyl mercuric chloride (MMC), and intestinal microorganisms were thereby reduced. Inorganic and organic mercury were determined separately for faeces, intestinal contents and organs. On the fourth day after the mercury administration, the percentage ratios of inorganic mercury to total mercury in the contents of the caecum and large intestine were less in the mice treated with antibiotics, at 37% and 39%, respectively, than in the control mice (66% and 65%, respectively). Administration of the antibiotics reduced the excretion of inorganic mercury in the faeces to 26% of that of control mice and also reduced the excretion of total mercury to 60%. Reduction of intestinal microorganisms by the antibiotics was assumed to have caused the reduced decomposition of methyl mercury in the caecal contents and the reduced excretion of total mercury in the faeces.
PMID: 7342686 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_article_id=199412&in_
page_id=169
'Antibiotics link' to MMR and autism
by STEPHEN HULL, Metro
Antibiotics may be to blame for hundreds of children developing autism after having the controversial MMR jab, it has been claimed. More than two-thirds of youngsters with the condition received four or more antibiotics in their first year, a survey revealed. It is thought the drugs weakened their immune systems, leaving them unable to withstand the impact of the triple jab.
Look here too...
Jon Tommey, publisher of Autism File magazine, attacked a 'cavalier attitude' to the measles, mumps and rubella jab and similar inoculations. 'Doctors need to pay more care to whether a child is well enough to be vaccinated,' he said. Mr Tommey said youngsters received four sets of multiple vaccines in their first year. 'There is evidence that giving children with weakened immune systems vaccinations such as MMR could damage sensitive areas, such as chemical pathways in the brain,' he added. Mr Tommey said his seven-year-old autistic son was perfectly normal but received five courses of antibiotics in his first year. Shortly afterwards, he had the MMR jab - not long after a course of antibiotics and while he was ill.
The Autism Research Centre said: 'There seems less care these days about checking to see if a child is fit for immunisation.' Anti-MMR campaign group JABS said: 'There must be an urgent investigation into why our children are ill.' The Department of Health insists the MMR vaccine is safe.
A senior government adviser has said that Tony Blair's refusal to say whether his son Leo was given an MMR injection had helped generate a lack of public confidence in the jab, writes Andy Dolan. Professor Brent Taylor challenged the Prime Minister to reveal whether Leo, now aged three, had been immunised.
Latest figures show that one in five two-year-olds are not being given the measles, mumps and rubella jab - the highest proportion since the triple vaccine was launched in the late 1980s. If Leo had the jab at the age of two - as is standard practice - he would now be due for a booster. But Mr Blair and his wife Cherie have refused to comment on the matter, citing their son's right to privacy. Professor Taylor said: 'There's no doubt if Tony Blair was able to come out publicly and say, ''Yes, of course Leo had the MMR vaccination, of course he is going to get the booster'', then that would be a useful additional support to public confidence.'
From ENN, the Environmental News Network: E.U. farm animals could be treated with alternative medicines Tuesday, January 27, 2004 By Peter Apps, Reuters LONDON — A European Union ban on antibiotics in animal feeds could make farmers switch to natural solutions such as plant extracts to keep animals healthy and promote growth, British researchers said Monday. The ban, due to come into force in 2006, has caused researchers to look at using "alternative remedies" such as essential oils, said scientist Henry Greathead of Leeds University, northern England.
"With a lot of these plant-based treatments, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence and not a lot of science to back it up," he said. "What we're really trying to do is inject some science into these claims." He said scientists were hoping to show that essential oils extracted from plants such as thyme, garlic, and cinnamon could have a similar effect to antibiotics, which kill harmful bacteria. The E.U. ban was introduced mainly to prevent the further spread of antibiotic-resistant "superbugs," some of which can affect humans and have become a growing problem for treating hospital patients.
At the Rowett Research Center in Aberdeen, Scotland, scientist Harry Flint said that as well as plant extracts, other options were being tested, including probiotics — so-called friendly bacteria that can help fight infections. "The consequences of not finding a solution would be that food becomes more expensive," he said. At Britain's Soil Association, which campaigns for organic farming, policy adviser Richard Young said the ban, which still allows veterinary use of antibiotics, did not go far enough. "The reality is that if you keep animals in good conditions, you don't need the routine use of drugs," he said.
http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/0204/17antibiotic.html
Study links breast cancer to antibiotic use
By Rob Stein
The Washington Post
Published on: 02/16/04
Antibiotic use is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, a new study has found, raising the possibility that women who take the widely used medicines are prone to one of the most feared malignancies.
The first-of-its-kind study of more than 10,000 Washington state women concluded that women who used the most antibiotics had double the chances of being struck by breast cancer, that the association was consistent for all forms of antibiotics and that the risk went up with the number of
prescriptions, a powerful indication that the link was real.
A variety of experts quickly cautioned, however, that the findings should not stop women from taking the often lifesaving drugs when they need them to treat infections. There could be other explanations for the association, and much more research is needed before scientists understood what the surprising results mean, they said.
"This is not saying that women should stop taking antibiotics. Women should take antibiotics for infections," said Stephen Taplin, a senior scientist at the National Cancer Institute who helped conduct the study. "We need to follow-up and find out if this a real association."
Nevertheless, the study was so well designed and the findings were so striking that it could be that antibiotic use is an important, previously unrecognized risk factor for breast cancer, experts said.
Antibiotics could increase the risk for breast cancer by, for example, affecting bacteria in the digestive system in ways that interfere with the metabolism of foods that protect against cancer, experts said. Another possibility is that antibiotics boost the risk by affecting the immune system or the body's inflammatory response.
Even if it turns out antibiotics do not increase the risk for breast cancer, the finding is likely to turn out to be important because it could lead to the discovery of whatever it is about women who use the drugs that also appears to make them prone to the disease, researchers said. "This has opened up a picture that people had not been thinking about," Taplin said. "The important thing is more research and asking more questions about what it could be."
Until the results are sorted out, experts said, the findings provide yet another reason for doctors to more judiciously prescribe antibiotics, which are often used unnecessarily, especially for women who may be at risk for breast cancer for other reasons.
"It's a very provocative finding but it's not entirely clear what it means," Roberta Ness, an epidemiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, who co-authored an editorial accompanying the study in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association. "The first thing you have to ask is if it's real. I think a cautious interpretation is very reasonable."
The researchers took pains to try to find other explanations for the association, such as the possibility that women who take antibiotics are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer because they see doctors more often. But the association remained even after they excluded that and all of the other most likely possibilities.
The study's design, however, made it impossible to rule out the chance that women who tend to use the medicines are somehow biologically predisposed to breast cancer for other reasons, such as by having weak immune systems or a hormonal imbalance that is the real cause of both their increased risk for breast cancer and for infections that prompted antibiotic use.
Scientists first proposed that antibiotics may increase the risk for breast cancer in 1981, but the only other study to examine the question was in Finland in 2000. That study also found an association, but it was not as well designed, prompting the new research.
"Antibiotics are used extensively in this country and in many parts of the world. The possible association between breast cancer and antibiotic use was important to examine," said Christine Velicer, an epidemiologist with Group Health Cooperative's Center for Health Studies who was the lead author of the study.
Breast cancer strikes more than 211,000 women each year in the United States and kills more than 40,000, making it the leading cause of cancer and second-leading cancer killer among women.
Velicer, Taplin and their colleagues examined computerized pharmacy and cancer screening records of 2,266 women in the Group Health Cooperative, a Seattle-area health plan, who developed breast cancer, and 7,953 similar women who did not get breast cancer.
Women who had more than 25 individual prescriptions for antibiotics over an average period of 17 years had twice the risk of breast cancer as those who had taken no antibiotics. The risk was lower for women who took fewer antibiotics, but even those who had between one and 25 prescriptions were about 1.5 times more likely to get breast cancer, the researchers found. "It was surprising for me that there was an association," said Velicer. "The overall robustness and the consistency across a number of common antibiotics was really notable."
Antibiotics are regularly prescribed for a wide variety of conditions, such as respiratory infections, acne and urinary tract infections. In the study, more than 70 percent of women had used between one and 25 prescriptions for antibiotics, and only 18 percent had not filled any antibiotic prescriptions.
The researchers tried to explain the results by looking at other known risk factors, such as a family history of breast cancer, hormone use and mammograms. But none did. They also did a separate analysis comparing women who were taking large amounts of antibiotics because of a skin condition associated with a hormonal imbalance with those taking antibiotics because of respiratory infections so see if the real cause might be the hormonal imbalance. That, too, failed to explain the findings, though it could not completely rule it out.
One finding that cast doubt on the possibility that it will turn out that antibiotics increase the risk for breast cancer was that the study found the risk for all types of antibiotics, said Debbie Saslow, director of breast and gynecologic cancer for the American Cancer Society. That makes it unlikely it's the antibiotics because they different classes work in very different ways, she said.
"There are a lot of things associated with cancer risk that have absolutely nothing to do with causing cancer," she said.
Jeanne Calle, the society's director of analytical epidemiology, called the study "important" because "it appears to be the first major work to describe a possible association between antibiotic use and the increased risk of cancer. But, she said, "it is critical to realize we cannot say with any certainty how valid these results are until and unless they are replicated in additional studies. There is no question other researchers will now begin to investigate this potential association. Such additional studies will clarify the role, if any, of antibiotic use and breast cancer risk."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3624205.stm
14 April, 2004, 04:01 GMT 05:01 UK
Concern over drug found in eggs
One in eight egg samples contained the antibiotic
New concerns about traces of a potentially harmful drug found in some British eggs have been raised by an organic farming group. The Soil Association says one in eight egg samples tested contained traces of the antibiotic lasalocid. It claims the drug could pose a risk to people with heart conditions. The Food Standards Agency says the levels reported do not raise immediate health concerns but has criticised the poultry industry over the finding. The food safety watchdog said it was disappointed the industry had not eradicated the drug from eggs.
Contamination
There has been concern for some time about lasalocid, a drug added to chicken feed to prevent gut infections. It is not fed to laying hens but has been detected in eggs, probably through accidental contamination in feed mills. The Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, says new government figures show one in eight egg samples tested last year contained traces of the drug. It claims this could be risky for people with heart conditions but little is known about how the type of antibiotic behaves in the human body. The egg industry itself says recent changes in the way the drug is produced should prevent it from reaching egg-laying hens in future.
Got Antibiotics? Celebrate National Dairy Month!
Since we're in the first week of National Dairy Month, it's time we give credit to that industry which brings us pus, hormones, glue, pesticides, and antibiotics. Is June National Antibiotics Month too?
Turn back the clock 45 years for evidence that things have not changed with cows or milk, as we travel back in time with an old issue of Hoard's Dairyman, the national dairy farmers magazine.
In June of 1959, I was counting the days, looking forward to school's end and the start of summer vacation. The front cover of the June 25, 1959 issue of Hoard's has an imprinted map of the United States announcing "June is Dairy Month." This milk promotion program has been going on for a long time!
While America was being conned by milk ads, what truths were dairy insiders reading? Opening the front cover of the June 25, 1959 issue, the reader finds a full page ad for:
"The NEW Teramycin for mastitis" treatment.
The ad copy reveals that the NEW Pfizer drug controls ten or more kinds of mastitis germs causing infections. Infections? Germs? If only Americans knew what was going on with those udders in 1959. Four decades later, most milk consumers are still in the dark. In 2004, the cost of mastitis control per cow will exceed $200 per year. That's over $2 billion dollars of drugs in their bodies and yours. The inside rear cover of the 1959 issue of Hoard's contains a full page ad for what's marketed as a "hidden drug treatment," American Cyanamid's Aureomycin, an antibiotic that was once placed in animal feed. The ad copy lets dairymen know:
"Grass alone can't give your cows all the food values they need for sustained high production. When you're feeding cows... an effective antibiotic in the ration becomes more urgent."
Cows were fed antibiotics for generations, and few people outside of the industry knew. Little boys and girls, myself included, were fed these same antibiotics, day after day. Here's an appropriate June quote by which dairy farmers can celebrate their special month. The following appeared in the June, 1999 issue of a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Food Protein (Volume 62):
"The administration of subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics to livestock introduces selective pressures that may lead to the emergence and dissemination of resistant bacteria. The present findings clearly demonstrate that antibiotic-resistant bacteria in beef and milk pose a serious problem."
Today, little boys and girls cannot be treated for infections because antibiotics no longer work. Doctors are blamed for oversubscribing medicines. This is plain nonsense. New strains of germs grew within cows and developed immunities to antibiotics. If one takes antibiotics every day, and drinks antibiotic-laced milk containing germs with immunities, one will gain nothing by taking those same antibiotics to treat human infection.
The cover pictures a herd of cows, later identified as a 60-cow champion herd averaging 9,557 pounds of milk per animal. That averages out to 12.4 quarts of milk per cow per day. In 1959, the average cow produced just 8 quarts of milk each day. Today, the average milk production per animal is 24.5 quarts.
Some things have changed. Others remain the same. Got antibiotics?
Happy National Dairy Antibiotic Month.
Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com
Do antibiotics work? Answer by Sheri Nakken RN
The short answer is:
1. Antibiotics are suppressive - illness isn't about bacteria. Its about immune impairment that allows the bacteria to be harmful (or there are other ways of looking at it)
2. Bacteria are doing their job and antibiotics stop the body's way of dealing with diseased tissue which the bacteria are working on and that is what causes your symptoms
3. Antibiotics disturb the immune system
4. Antibiotics disturb the gut - we have NO idea what antibiotics have done to our health since their invention. Someone I know is researching literature written about the bowel flora BEFORE antibiotics invented. I think we have done huge damage.
5. Bacteria are not the enemy.
6. We have an immune system that usually can deal with these issues without antibiotics - only in rare instances are they helpful to save a life with little time for other measures.
7. Antibiotics have changed the face of bacteria - mutations, etc.
Trouble in the Gut, When Antibiotics Work Too Well
By Jane E. Brody for the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/health/24brod.html?_r=1&oref=login
Mark Shulman of Woodstock, N.Y., had scary medical problem: a tumor on his neck. Although a biopsy indicated it was benign, it was growing and had to be removed surgically under general anesthesia. But that turned out to be a much smaller ordeal than the one after Mr. Shulman left the hospital. The doctors thought the unusual growth might have been caused by an infection, so they gave Mr. Shulman large doses of antibiotics. His neck wound was healing nicely, but that's when his troubles really began.
Within a week, he developed diarrhea - not the ordinary kind you might experience with an intestinal virus or after eating tainted food, but unrelenting, watery stools and severe cramps that kept him glued to the bedroom and adjacent bathroom for days. Soon he was losing more water than he could consume and had to be taken to the emergency room. There the cause of his devastating problem was soon identified: Clostridium difficile, a spore-forming, toxin-producing bacterium that can flourish in the large intestine when antibiotics kill off the competition, the healthful bacteria that normally inhabit the gut and suppress the growth of such noxious organisms.
A Common Presence
In recent years, C. difficile, has emerged as one of the world's most common hospital-acquired infections. In the United States alone, it is estimated to cause about 3 million cases of diarrhea and colitis (colonic inflammation) and 5,000 to 20,000 deaths each year, and the incidence is rising. Experts attribute the rise to the use and abuse of antibiotics as well
as inadequate hygienic practices by hospital and nursing home personnel, at-home care providers and unsuspecting carriers of C. difficile who have no symptoms.
Furthermore, studies indicate that C. difficile, so named in the 1930's because it was difficult to isolate and grow in the laboratory, has become more virulent in recent years, perhaps because potent antibiotics killed off less noxious variants of the organism. Superstrains of the
organism produce about 20 times as many colon-damaging toxins as typical strains.
C. difficile is believed to be responsible for nearly all intestinal infections, from mild diarrhea to severe or even fatal colitis, that occur after antibiotic therapy. So far, this bacterium remains susceptible to one or both of two oral antibiotics: Flagyl (metronidazole) and Vancocin (vancomycin), which were used to treat Mr. Shulman successfully. But it may be only a matter of time before C. difficile evolves a way around these drugs and becomes an even deadlier scourge.
C. difficile is a surprisingly ubiquitous inhabitant of the environment and people. It forms heat-resistant spores that can survive for months to years. These spores can be found in marine sediment; sand; the dung of camels, horses and donkeys; the feces of dogs, cats and birds; and the human genital tract, as well as the intestinal tract and feces of people. The organism spreads by the fecal-oral route, often by hands contaminated through environmental objects like toilet seats or doorknobs. As many as 70 percent of healthy infants are born with C. difficile inhabiting their colons. For unknown reasons, possibly because the infant gut lacks receptors for the bacterium's two toxins, it does not make these babies sick. But by about age 2, when a child's gut is better developed and well stocked with friendly bacteria, the presence of C. difficile fades, dropping to 2 to 3 percent of children, the rate found among healthy adults. But if a healthy carrier is treated with antibiotics that destroy the beneficial bacteria, C. difficile can emerge as a serious threat. And if medical personnel are not assiduous about hand washing between patients, the organism can spread readily in health care settings.
When Diarrhea Takes Hold
This does not mean, however, that everyone who becomes infected will become ill. About 20 percent of hospital patients acquire C. difficile during their hospital stays, but only about a third of these develop diarrhea as a result. The rest remain as asymptomatic carriers. The longer a person is hospitalized, the greater the risk of acquiring C. difficile, increasing to half of patients in for four weeks or more. The organism and its spores have been found throughout the hospital - on toilets, telephones, stethoscopes and the hands of workers. The illness this bacterium causes can occur during a patient's hospital stay or within days, weeks or even months after discharge. It can also afflict people taking antibiotics outside the hospital. The resulting diarrhea can be mild, ending within a week without treatment, or it can become severe, as happened to Mr. Shulman. + Full article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/health/24brod.html?_r=1&oref=login
Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh). 1981 Oct;49(4):259-65. Related Articles,Links
Methyl mercury decomposition in mice treated with antibiotics.
Seko Y, Miura T, Takahashi M, Koyama T.
The role of intestinal flora in the decomposition and faecal excretion of methyl mercury was studied in mice treated with antibiotics. The antibiotics, neomycin sulfate and chloramphenicol, were given to mice in drinking water for six days before intraperitoneal administration of methyl mercuric chloride (MMC), and intestinal microorganisms were thereby reduced. Inorganic and organic mercury were determined separately for faeces, intestinal contents and organs. On the fourth day after the mercury administration, the percentage ratios of inorganic mercury to total mercury in the contents of the caecum and large intestine were less in the mice treated with antibiotics, at 37% and 39%, respectively, than in the control mice (66% and 65%, respectively). Administration of the antibiotics reduced the excretion of inorganic mercury in the faeces to 26% of that of control mice and also reduced the excretion of total mercury to 60%. Reduction of intestinal microorganisms by the antibiotics was assumed to have caused the reduced decomposition of methyl mercury in the caecal contents and the reduced excretion of total mercury in the faeces.
PMID: 7342686 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/science/08drug.html?ei=5094&en=6935b665675
4232e&hp=&ex=1149825600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
THE NEW YORK TIMES
June 8, 2006
Halt Is Urged for Trials of Antibiotic in Children
By GARDINER HARRIS
A Food and Drug Administration official called in May for a drug company to halt clinical trials of an antibiotic in children because the drug could be deadly, according to internal memorandums sent to other F.D.A. officials. The drug, Ketek, made by Sanofi-Aventis, is being tested as a treatment for ear infections and tonsillitis in nearly 4,000 infants and children in more than a dozen countries, including the United States, according to postings on a government Web site. But Ketek, which is currently approved for use only in adults, has been reported to cause liver failure, blurred vision and loss of consciousness in adults.
"How does one justify balancing the risk of fatal liver failure against one day less of ear pain?" Dr. Rosemary Johann-Liang, an official in the Office of Drug Safety at the agency, wrote in one of the memorandums, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. Sanofi-Aventis is sponsoring four clinical trials in children ages 6 months to 13 years, according the Web site posting. The drug agency approved plans for the trials.
There is growing evidence that Ketek is unusually toxic, according to a recent review by F.D.A. safety officials. Twelve adult patients in the United States have suffered liver failure, including four who died; 23
others suffered serious liver injury. The safety officials wrote in their review that the agency should consider forcing Sanofi-Aventis to withdraw Ketek from the market, severely restrict its uses, even in adults, or add a prominent warning to its label about potentially fatal side effects. More than five million prescriptions for Ketek have been written in the United States since its approval two years ago.
Asked about the memorandum written by Dr. Johann-Liang, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, Susan Bro, said that it was "a preliminary, raw assessment" and that "the final decision will be made by experts who have the full benefit of a large section of opinion and scientific fact." Melissa Feltmann, a spokeswoman for Sanofi-Aventis, said in an e-mail message, "We are engaged in ongoing discussions with the F.D.A. regarding Ketek."
Other antibiotics cause liver failure, but Ketek seems to do so almost four times as often, the safety officials concluded in the review. Ketek can also cause blurred vision and loss of consciousness, problems that are unique to it. In her memorandum, Dr. Johann-Liang asked how Sanofi-Aventis's investigators were going to assess whether infants were suffering blurred vision. "If we cannot monitor for this event in infants/young children appropriately in the clinical trial setting, what can we conclude from the safety results of the trial?" she asked.
Dr. Danny Benjamin, an infectious-disease specialist at Duke University who was consulted separately by the drug agency, concluded that the pediatric trials with Ketek were a cause for concern and "hard to support," according to the memorandums obtained by The New York Times. Dr. Benjamin did not respond to voice-mail or e-mail messages left for him yesterday.
In his memorandum, Dr. Benjamin said that in up to 87 percent of cases, pediatric ear infections resolved within a few days without treatment. Tests of an unusually risky antibiotic in infants with ear infections might be justified if the infants had already been treated unsuccessfully with safer antibiotics first, he wrote. Sanofi-Aventis planned to give Ketek as a first-line therapy, according to the company's trial descriptions.
The drug agency's actions in regard to Ketek are being investigated by Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, as well as by Representatives Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Henry A. Waxman of California, both Democrats. Sanofi-Aventis first asked the agency to approve the drug in February 2000. But officials demurred, citing reports of side effects. So the company undertook a study of Ketek in 24,000 patients to prove its safety. The trial was marred by fraud. One of the investigators on the study is now in federal prison; another lost his medical license.
The F.D.A. said it dismissed the study's results and instead asked the company to report its experience with Ketek in Europe, where it was approved in 2001. Although it is unusual for the agency to approve a drug based upon its use elsewhere, in April 2004, it . did just that, approving Ketek to treat sinusitis, bronchitis and pneumonia. Since then, problems with the drug have continued to mount. By April, the
agency had reports of 110 cases of liver problems associated with Ketek, most of which occurred in otherwise healthy people, according to the safety review. In one, a 49-year-old woman took no more than two doses of the drug before becoming nauseous and vomiting. She was hospitalized five days later and died.
Since they are submitted voluntarily, these kinds of case reports usually represent only a small fraction - estimates range from 1 percent to 10 percent - of actual drug problems. The reports that the F.D.A. has received so far are unusual because of their "rapid tempo and severity," the agency's internal safety report said. The agency officials estimated that Ketek caused acute liver failure in 23 people for every 10 million prescriptions, about four times the rate of such events seen in other antibiotics.
In 1999, sales of the antibiotic Trovan were severely restricted after it was shown to cause liver failure in 58 people for every 10 million prescriptions. In her memorandum, Dr. Johann-Liang suggested that Ketek's risks outweighed its benefits.
She noted that powerful antibiotics known as fluoroquinolones can also damage the liver. But she said that those drugs were available in intravenous forms and "are also used for more serious infectious diseases rather than solely for minor upper respiratory indications," as Ketek is. Dr. Johann-Liang wrote in her memorandum that the parents of patients in Sanofi-Aventis's pediatric trials must be better informed about Ketek's risks "in order for any of these trials to continue to proceed."
She added that the parents "need to know that the 'close monitoring' for visual events is not possible in very young children, and the long-term consequences of such adverse reactions are unknown for the developing system." Dr. Benjamin agreed that the brochure about the trials and informed-consent material given to parents "must address in plain language the risks, and severity of risks, of adverse events."
