Quote:
Originally Posted by x SF med
Trapper-
Some discussions I've had with ID docs at WRNMMC (2 yrs ago) seem to lead to a conclusion that in 1st world countries, with the use of 2nd-4th gen ABX being so high, that the 1st gen ABX (PCNs, TCNs, ECNs) are once again becoming effective as the pathogens are mutating to defeat the bigger threats.
Those same ID docs decry the use of the biggest guns early as contributing to the speed of increasing resistance by the pathogens.
I went through the 18D3 course about the same time as SouthernDZ (the second reclass cycle for AD 18 series folks) and we were hit over the head with start small, proper course length, monitor infection life... bigger guns if no change (dependent on affected system/virulence of infection) after a half course...
Why is current protocol that much changed that providers are going directly to Nukes when a 5.56 will work?
Troll sends.
|
Quote:
|
Why is current protocol that much changed that providers are going directly to Nukes when a 5.56 will work?
|
Not sure why that is??? It makes no good sense to me to apply the strongest drug first. The principles we were taught apply!
Interestingly, a friend is developing a nanoparticle technology to repurpose the older antibiotics. This strategy enables faster uptake and better bioavailability at much lower doses. The data show a much better therapeutic index (lower toxicity threshold) too. This has some real potential IMO. Predictably this strategy should result in less resistance too.
It will be interesting to see the clinical data from this strategy.
I would love to see a broad spectrum like chloramphenicol come back and with a lower toxicity index that could happen. I will keep you posted on the progress.
My approach is, as I said, UW and enhancing the indigenous innate immune response. That way those insurgents are never challenged by the drug in the first place.
