Tag: immunity

The bigger issues that come with preventing hearing loss

Is there cause for optimism when it comes to preventing hearing loss? Certainly the latest research into this suggests that if positive effects experienced by mice could be transferred to humans and maintained for the long term, then hereditary hearing loss could be a thing of the past.

It has always been assumed that hearing loss is always down to old age. The commonly held view is that as people grow older, their muscles and body functions deteriorate with time to the point that muscle function is impaired and eventually lost. But hearing loss is not necessarily down to age, although there are cases where constant exposure to loud noise, over time, causes reduced sensitivity to aural stimuli. Over half of hearing loss cases are actually due to inheriting faulty genetic mutations from parents.

How do we hear? The hair cells of the inner ear called the cochlea respond to vibrations and these signals are sent to the brain to interpret. The brain processes these signals in terms of frequency, duration and timbre in order to translate them into signals we know.

For example, if we hear a high frequency sound of short duration that is shrill, our brain interprets these characteristics and then runs through a database of audio sounds, an audio library in the brain, and may come up with the suggestion that it has come from a whistle and may signify a call for attention.

What happens when you have a genetic hearing loss gene? The hairs on the inner ear do not grow back and consequently sound vibration from external stimuli do not get passed on to the brain.

With progressive hearing loss too, the characteristics of sound also get distorted. We may hear sounds differently to how they are produced, thereby misinterpreting their meaning. Sounds of higher and lower frequency may be less audible too.

How does that cause a problem? Imagine an alarm. It is set on a high frequency so that it attracts attention. If your ability to hear high frequencies is gradually dulled then you may not be able to detect the sound of an alarm going off.

As hearing gradually deteriorates, the timbre of a sound changes. Sharper sounds become duller, and in the case of the alarm, you may hear it, but it may sound more muted and the brain may not be able to recognise that it is an alarm being heard.

Another problem with hearing loss is the loss of perception of volume. You may be crossing the road and a car might sound its horn if you suddenly encroach into its path. But if you cannot hear that the volume is loud, you may perceive it to be from a car far away and may not realise you are in danger.

The loss of the hairs in the inner ear is a cause of deafness in humans, particularly those for whom hearing loss is genetic. Humans suffering from hereditary hearing loss lose the hairs of the inner ear, which result in the difficulties mentioned above. But there is hope. In a research experiment, scientists successfully delayed the loss of the hairs in the inner ear for mice using a technique that edited away the genetic mutation that causes the loss of the hairs in the cochlea.

Mice were bred with the faulty gene that caused hearing loss. But using a technology known as Crispr, the faulty gene was replaced with a healthy normal one. After about eight weeks, the hairs in the inner ears of mice with genetic predisposition to hearing loss flourished, compared to similar mice which had not been treated. The genetic editing technique had removed the faulty gene which caused hearing loss. The treated mice were assessed for responsiveness to stimuli and showed positive gains.

We could be optimistic about the results but it is important to stress the need to be cautious.

Firstly, the research was conducted on mice and not humans. It is important to state that certain experiments that have been successful in animals have not necessarily had similar success when tried on humans.

Secondly, while the benefits in mice were seen in eight weeks, it may take longer in humans, if at all successful.

Thirdly, we should remember that the experiment worked for the mice which had the genetic mutation that would eventually cause deafness. In other words, they had their hearing at birth but were susceptible to losing it. The technique prevented degeneration in hearing in mice but would not help mice that were deaf at birth from gaining hearing they never had.

Every research carries ethical issues and this one was no different. Firstly, one ethical issue is the recurring one of whether animals should ever be used for research. Should mice be bred for the purposes of research? Are all the mice used? Are they accounted for? Is there someone from Health and Safety going around with a clipboard accounting for the mice? And what happens to the mice when the research has ceased? Are they put down, or released into the ecosystem? “Don’t be silly,” I hear you say, “it’s only mice.” That’s the problem. The devaluation of life, despite the fact that it belongs to another, is what eventually leads to a disregard for other life and human life in general. Would research scientists, in the quest for answers, eventually take to conducting research on beggars, those who sleep rough, or criminals? Would they experiment on orphans or unwanted babies?

The second, when it comes to genetics, is whether genetic experimentation furthers good or promotes misuse. The answer, I suppose, is that the knowledge empowers, but one cannot govern its control. The knowledge that genetic mutation can be edited is good news, perhaps, because it means we can genetically alter, perhaps, disabilities or life-threatening diseases from the onset by removing them. But this, on the other hand, may promote the rise of designer babies, where mothers genetically select features such as blue eyes for their unborn child to enhance their features from birth, and this would promote misuse in the medical community.

Would the use of what is probably best termed genetic surgery be more prominent in the future? One can only suppose so. Once procedures have become more widespread it is certain to conclude that more of such surgeons will become available, to cater for the rich and famous. It may be possible to delay the aging process by genetic surgery, perhaps by removing the gene that causes skin to age, instead of using botox and other external surgical procedures.

Would such genetic surgery ever be available on the NHS? For example, if the cancer gene were identified and could be genetically snipped off, would patients request this instead of medical tablets and other external surgical processes? One way of looking at it is that the NHS is so cash-strapped that under QALY rules, where the cost of a procedure is weighed against the number of quality life years it adds, the cost of genetic surgery would only be limited to more serious illnesses, and certainly not for those down the rung. But perhaps for younger individuals suffering from serious illnesses, such as depression, the cost of a surgical procedure may far outweigh a lifetime’s cost of medication of anti-depressant, anti-psychotics or antibiotics. If you could pinpoint a gene that causes a specific pain response, you might alter it to the point you may not need aspirin, too much of which causes bleeds. And if you could genetically locate what causes dementia in another person, would you not be considered unethical if you let the gene remain, thereby denying others the chance to live a quality life in their latter years?

Genetic editing may be a new technique for the moment but if there is sufficient investment into infrastructure and the corpus of genetic surgery information widens, don’t be surprised if we start seeing more of that in the next century. The cost of genetic editing may outweigh the cost of lifelong medication and side effects, and may prove to be not just more sustainable for the environment but more agreeable to the limited NHS budget.

Most of us won’t be around by then, of course. That is unless we’ve managed to remove the sickness and death genes.

Health umbrella reviews mask the real issues

You have to wonder why the breakfast tea doesn’t get the same level of attention. Or perhaps whether in France, the humble croissant is elevated to the same status. Or maybe the banana could soon be the star of another media show. But unfortunately it is coffee that headlines tomorrow’s fish and chips papers.

“Drinking three or four cups of coffee a day could have benefits for your health”. As we have seen previously, this kind of headline bears the hallmarks of a media health report:

1) repackaging of common information requiring little or no specialist examination;

2) use of a modal auxiliary verb (could) to conveniently justify or disclaim an

attention-grabbing headline – which, by the way, is point number three.

The health reports in the media also incorporate:

4) a statistically small group of trial participants, whose results are then blown up in proportion as if to be representative of the 7 billion people on the planet.

5) Assumptions. A media report about health could simply include assumptions.

Why dwell on coffee? For starters, it is a commonly consumed drink and so any meaningful research would potentially have bearings on millions of people. It is common media practice to focus on common food and activities because of the relevance to daily life.

But if you examine this carefully, why not tea? Why not write about tea? While conspiracy theories may be slightly far fetched, it is possible that – unless it is a speciality tea – coffees cost more, and any potential health benefits would lead people to spend more, hence generating more for the economy in the forms of tax. Perhaps this is why media writers don’t waste too much ink on researching the potential life-saving benefits of bananas, even though they are widely consumed. The research isn’t going to drive people to buy bananas in bulk, and even so, the extra revenue generated from a low priced item isn’t going to raise much extra tax.

Are there any notable similarities or differences in style across different countries? One wonders whether Parisian newspapers, on a regular basis, churn out headlines such as:

“Eating two or more croissants a day could reduce your chances of heart disease.”

“Pan aux raisins linked with dementia”.

The research done was an umbrella review to potentially examine whether further research should be undertaken into researching the effects of coffee and its role in preventing liver cancer. An umbrella review meant that no actual research was undertaken, but that existing research was examined and analysed to glean insights.

The problem with umbrella reviews is that they are very generalised, no actual research is done, and they are only brief analyses of existing research. This means that first of all, an umbrella review could arrive at a particular conclusion, but in no way should that be taken as the final conclusion.

In fact, the findings of an umbrella review are only the preliminary to more detailed investigation. If an umbrella review suggested that drinking coffee could prevent cancer, then what it is saying is more research needs to be undertaken, and the media needs to be ethically responsible by not reporting “Coffee prevents Cancer”, because there are people that look at newspapers and television as the source of their information and assume just because it has been released in the public domain, it is truth. Who could conceive that newspapers spend time and resources to publish trivial information and that television is pure rubbish?

The second problem with umbrella reviews is that the outcomes are only as good as the original sources. If someone gave you a set of grainy photos, then asked you to make a collage with them, then your collage is going to be as good as the grainy photos will allow. If the original sources were not thorough or exact in their investigation, are any subsequent findings based on these merely just a waste of time?

The third issue with umbrella reviews is that under closer scrutiny, the overall picture is distorted by over focussing on small statistical variances, or sometimes minute errors are magnified and lead one down the wrong path.

If you took a picture on your phone and then blew it up to the size of a mural covering the side of your house, the picture becomes very dotty. You might see big patchy squares. But if you started looking for that big patchy square from the image in your phone… one has to wonder what the purpose of that is.

The fourth is that because umbrella reviews are a prelude to a more thorough investigation, their end results are slightly skewed from the outset. If an umbrella review is bound to provide a few avenues for later time-consuming research then it is fundamentally biased into having to provide one in the first place. Why, in that case, have such reviews in the first place? Some may point out that the flaw in the system is that umbrella reviews are relied on by those in academia and research to warrant the continued longevity of their positions. In other words, if researchers had nothing to research, they might be out of a job, so they best find something to stick their noses in.

Have you ever read the London newspaper Metro and come across some research news such as:

“Going to bed angry can wreck your sleep” (25 Sept 2017)

It is the sort of headline that makes you think “Why bother doing the research in the first place?”

It is likely that you have read a media report of an umbrella review.

What were the findings of the original coffee review?

Drinking coffee was consistently linked with a lower risk of death from all causes and from heart disease. The largest reduction in relative risk of premature death was seen in people consuming three cups a day, compared with non-coffee drinkers.

Now, when an umbrella review mentions drinking coffee is linked with a lower risk of death, it is important to be clear about what it specifically means. And what it is stating is that those who had a lower risk of death all happened to drink coffee. It might have nothing to do with the coffee itself. It might have been that they took a break to slow down a fast-paced lifestyle, and the taking of a break gave them a lower risk of death. By that logic of association, tea could also be linked with a lower risk of death.

Coffee was also associated with a lower risk of several cancers, including prostate, endometrial, skin and liver cancer, as well as type-2 diabetes, gallstones and gout, the researchers said. The greatest benefit was seen for liver conditions such as cirrhosis of the liver.

Again, to be clear, the above link means that those who were at lower risk of those cancers happened to drink coffee. But it is not necessarily stating the coffee had anything to do with it.

And coffee is such a commonly consumed drink, that it is easy to use it to draw links to anything.

If people who died from car accidents happened to drink coffee, an umbrella review might state that drinking coffee is linked with higher incidences of car accidents.

The findings can be summarised by a health analyst:

“Does coffee prevent chronic disease and reduce mortality? We simply do not know. Should doctors recommend drinking coffee to prevent disease? Should people start drinking coffee for health reasons? The answer to both questions is ‘no’.”

We should perhaps add a further third question: Did the umbrella review produce any actionable findings, and should it have been undertaken in the first place?

Probably not.

Physical and Mental Contamination

Is there a need to start worrying about your kitchen? I don’t mean in the home improvement context, never mind that the island unit is looking a bit worse for wear, and that your swanky appliances need upgrading so you can have two ovens to cook for your little army; or maybe you are thinking you could expand beyond the microwave and gas cooker. Or perhaps you are considering the option of creating an open plan kitchen. Whatever the physical changes you are considering, they are beyond the scope of discussion. Danger lurks in your kitchen.

It doesn’t come in the form of masked strangers brandishing kitchen implements. Or ruthless critics in the form of master chefs or children. No, the hidden danger in your kitchen is more subtle, more soft, yet potentially more lethal.

The kitchen sponge.

Scientists estimate that the kitchen sponge contains the highest concentration of bacteria than anywhere in the house. On the face of things, this is not an unrealistic statement. The kitchen sponge is in contact with remnants of food as it passes over the crockery and cutlery, and while the latter are clean, microscopic elements of food have merely been transferred to the sponge. And even if you take the effort to rinse out the sponge, or go a step further by microwaving the sponge, trace elements of food bacteria will remain.

According to the Mail Online, one of the more sensationalist newspapers in the United Kingdom, there are 54 billion cells of bacteria residing on the humble sponge. But of course the Mail Online would say that – it is taking a simple fact and blowing it out of proportion in order to create a purchasing headline. (And what is a purchasing headline? It is one that intrigues you enough to make a financial physical purchase to discover more, or hook you in enough to commit your time to reading more, never mind that the headline was slightly manipulated in the first place.) The fact is, bacteria exist all around us. They are on the surfaces of things around us. But it is important to distinguish between good and bad bacteria. The majority of bacteria around us are harmless. The remaining bacteria can do us harm if they enter our bodies, which is why it is a good idea to wash hands before eating. This ensures the harmful bacteria on our hands, either from touching door knobs or taps or other contaminated surfaces, does not rest on food that we ingest. It is also a good idea to cover up exposed cuts so that bacteria does not enter the bloodstream.

Bacteria is all around us but we can’t live life in fear of it.

Can you imagine if the word bacteria was substituted with the word humans? It would give a better perspective.

The headline would read that something like “A higher concentration of criminals found in [name of city]”. But you can’t live like every human in that city will do you harm. You can only take necessary steps to avoid being negatively affected.

Just like bacteria.

The current guidelines around hand washing recommend that we  our hands with water and soap for at least 20 seconds, after instances such as using the toilet, handling raw food like meat and vegetables. It is advised that we wash our hands before eating or after contact with animals.

Does washing with specialist soaps make any difference? A study by Rutgers University and GOJO Industries in the US found that there was little difference, which suggests the science between Brand X and Brand Y is as manufactured as the products themselves.

The study involved twenty volunteers and examined variables of hand washing such as brand, volume and time elapsed. A non-harmful strain of the bacteria e-coli was placed on the hands of the volunteers and then examined after washing to see how much remained.

The study found that there was little to distinguish between normal soaps and anti-microbial formulations. In fact, as long as volunteers washed their hands with soap for thirty seconds, the difference in results after washing were negligible.

There were a couple of minor limitations to the study conducted by Rutgers and GOJO Industries.

Firstly, that sample size is too small. Secondly, volunteers could not ethically be asked to handle deadly bacteria so the results may have only be applicable to that particular strain of bacteria.

There was a major stumbling block to the research however. GOJO Industries manufactures hand soaps.

We have already examined in the past how it is not a good idea if pharmaceutical companies run their own tests because the authenticity cannot be guaranteed completely if there is a bias from the outset. If a pharmaceutical company or any other manufacturing company is going to invest time, money and effort into production, it is going to choose results which have a positive bias, rather than those with a negative one which either force further research, impacting on production time and costs, or one that cause the complete abandonment of results.

Is there anything we can trust anymore? The dilemmas we have are that the media distorts reporting, and research is funded with an agenda which produces an expected outcome. It is difficult to secure funding for research if there is no meaningful purpose behind it beyond sales.

Returning to the original issue of bacteria, as long as we take necessary precautions, that is the best we can do. These precautions include replacing the sponge regularly, and not leaving unwashed dishes in the kitchen, and washing our hands to avoid contamination.

And take in what you read and hear about health and news with a pinch of objectivity. Avoid contaminating your mind too!

Revising Traditional Antibiotic Advice

What do you do when you have a cold and feel under the weather? Perhaps you decide to tough it out, and head to work as usual. You grin and bear it, because as far as you are concerned, it’s just a common cold and you can’t do anything about it.

But suppose you don’t get any better after a week, when you expected that the cold would have already run its course. You decide to stay at home to rest, and after a further two days when no improvement is seen, you go to visit the doctor.

The doctor’s advice? A course of antibiotics. Two tablets three times a day after meals, and by the way, keep finishing the course even when you feel better.

This is the advice that has been dispensed through decades to patients. Finish the whole prescription of antibiotics. And as patients, we put our trust in doctors so whatever they said went. Who were we to argue with seven years of medical training?

But what would you say if this medical advice turned out to be incorrect? I know what I’d think – firstly the sceptic in me would say medical advice is fickle and flows with what is fashionable at the time. At times, medicine seems also subservient to politics and economy. Remember the case with red wine? When the economy was flagging, a glass of red wine was said to be good for you. Yet when the NHS was under strain this so-called health benefit was reversed.

In this day and age it is also fashionable for everyone to carve a niche for themselves, and for many the way to do so is to turn traditional advice upside down on its head and revise or reformat existing information. And so, with these in mind, it is unsurprising that we learn of yet another study that claims the rule that patients must finish antibiotics course is wrong.

The new slant on the old problem is that patients should stop taking the prescribed medication when they feel better rather than as what doctors previously used to recommend.

The new panel of experts suggest that  the long embedded rule is incorrect, because continually taking medication after we have felt better only lowers the body’s resistance in the long run. They argue that if the body already feels better, giving it medication it does not need has counter-productive effects.

This differs with the advice that doctors have traditionally recommended, which is based on the idea that bacteria remains in our bodies even though we feel better and these bacteria may develop adaptation to antibiotics if they are not fully killed off. In other words, if you have not fully killed off the bacteria, it develops tolerance and immunity to the drug which partially fended it off, and ultimately the antibiotics’ effectiveness is negated.

Imagine two medieval armies: Trojans and Greeks. One day the Trojans manage to get inside the Greek city walls and wreak havoc (according to the Greeks anyway) with their torches, spears and swords. But the Greeks have a special weapon, say for arguments’ sake, an M16 with a laser sight. If the Greeks completely defeat the Trojans, the effectiveness of their weapon is guaranteed against successive waves of Trojan attacks. But if the Greek army stops to celebrate the moment the city battle swings in their favour, retreating Trojans may bring back information about the weapon, and how it works, and plan successive attacks that limit the effectiveness of the weapon or destroy it completely.

Martin Llewelyn, professor in infectious diseases at Brighton and Sussex medical school have called for a re-examination of the traditional advice. In an analysis in the British Medical Journal, they say “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”.

In other words, stop taking the medicine the moment you feel better.
In the past, the theory supporting the completion of a course of antibiotics has been that too short a course would allow the bacteria causing  disease to mutate and become resistant to the drug.

For certain diseases, bacteria can clearly become resistant if the drugs are not taken for long enough to completely eradicate them. One such example of this is tuberculosis.

But a large majority of the bacteria that cause illnesses are found in the environment around us and have no impact until the bacteria gets into the bloodstream or the gut. The case putting forward a cessation in medication once the patient’s health improves is that the longer the bacterial exposure to antibiotics within the body, the higher the chance of developed resistance.

The hypothesis put forth by Professor Llewelyn has not been without its backers.

Peter Openshaw, president of the British Society for Immunology, said he had always considered the notion  that stopping antibiotic treatment early would make organisms more drug-resistant rather “illogical”.

He supported the idea of a more sparing use of antibiotics because the evidence of a link between long-term complete use and benefit was tenuous.

He dismissed claims that not finishing a course of antibiotics would lead to bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance but thought the reverse would be more true. “Far from being irresponsible, shortening the duration of a course of antibiotics might make antibiotic resistance less likely.”

A great British authority, Prof Harold Lambert had made the suggestion as far back as in 1999 in a Lancet article entitled “Don’t keep taking the tablets”. Even though the idea had been broached then, it had not been taken seriously and with hindsight it is surprising that nearly two decades later the medical world has not investigated the alternatives fully and that the optimum duration of antibiotics courses or doses in many conditions remains an investigated fast.

Jodi Lindsay, a professor of microbial pathogenesis at St George’s, University of London, stated that the new research by Professor Llewellyn was good in principle, and that the previous advice to complete a course of antibiotics may have been based on a fear of under-treatment. But nevertheless she cautioned against an over-reaction towards the results of the findings. “The evidence for shorter courses of antibiotics being equal to longer courses, in terms of cure or outcome, is generally good, although more studies would help and there are a few exceptions when longer courses are better – for example, TB.”

To complicate matters, the ideal length of a course of antibiotics varies in individuals depending on what antibiotics they have taken in the past. Hospitalised patients can be tested to find out when the drugs can be stopped. Outside of a hospital setting, this testing is not feasible.

The World Health Organisation advice is still based on the pre-existing guidelines and has not changed.

The Royal College of GPs, however, expressed caution over the findings. “Recommended courses of antibiotics are not random,” said its chair, Prof Helen Stokes-Lampard. She further elaborated that antibiotic treatment courses were already being customised according to individual conditions and if patients took it upon themselves to adjust the prescribed periods, stopping when they felt better, it would be dangerous because a slight turn in outlook did not necessarily demonstrate the complete eradication of the disease. Professor Stokes-Lampard also stressed that it was important for patients to have clear guidelines to adhere to and any adjustment using feel as an indicator might be confusing.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently developing guidance for managing common infections, which will look at all available evidence on appropriate prescribing of antibiotics.

The cynics among us might ask, has such a review on current guidelines been made with the objective to cut the cost of medical care? It is well known the health budget is ever dwindling, and one cannot help but feel that the review on existing guidelines of antibiotics has been made with an objective to save on the cost of medicine rather than put patient health first.

The health service is currently riding the trend of developing sustainability in infrastructure and treatment, and this revision of traditional guidelines may seem to be a reframing of the evidence to suit a pre-determined outlook.

Let us return to the example of Greeks and Trojans. If the battle is raging within the Greek city walls and the tide turns against the Trojans, should the Greeks fire their ammunition at the retreating Trojans until they all fall to the ground? Ammunition in the form of gunpowder and metal casings cost money and if the ammunition could be used sparingly, then there is more money to funnel towards other  daily activities like farming and livestock. The question we are being asked to address is the equivalent of this hypothetical situation: Should the Greeks keep firing their weapons, until all the Trojans fall before they manage to retreat and leave the Greek city walls, or should the Greeks try to save the cost of a few rounds of ammunition if they are certain the Trojans are so heavily wounded they would never survive the escape and make it to their own city walls to compromise the information they know about the secret weapon?

You may decide, as I did, that the cost of a few extra rounds of ammunition outweighs all the mental confusion of wondering “what if …?” for the next few months. “What if I didn’t take the medication long enough? What if the bacteria has mutated?”

You can see why it is easier that when it comes to health, be cautious, don’t customise. Don’t experiment on the one life you’ve got!

The need for cautious antibiotic usage

Antibiotics are medicines which are used to treat forms of bacterial infection or prevent their spread. As the name “antibiotics” suggest, they are anti-bodies and work by killing bacteria or preventing them from reproducing and spreading.

That all sounds impressive. But unfortunately antibodies don’t work for everything. For example, antibiotics don’t work for viral infections such as colds and flu, and most coughs and sore throats. Someone suffering from these infections usually get better without the use of antibiotics. The use of antibiotics to treat these is actually counter-productive, as taking antibiotics when you don’t need them encourages dangerous bacteria that live inside you to become resistant. Over time, this will mean that when you require the help of antibiotics most, they may not work for you as you may have actually been encouraging the tolerance of bacteria by suppressing your body’s ability to fight bacteria.

So don’t use antibiotics for common ailments that can get better on their own. In these situations, what you need is pain relief, and there are many options to choose from. However, antibiotics may be used to treat bacterial infections in cases such as when bacteria could infect others unless treated or infections are not likely to clear up without antibiotics. In other words, if there is further risk of infection to others, or complications which may arise from a lack of treatment, then a course of antibiotics is best followed.

The doses of antibiotics vary but if you are prescribed a course, then take the antibiotics as directed on the packet or the patient information leaflet that comes with the medication. If in doubt then seek advice from the pharmacist.

Antibiotics can be administered in various ways. The most common antibiotics are oral ones, in the form of capsules, tablets or liquid. These are commonly used to treat moderate infections or infections which are milder. There are also topical antibiotics, which are basically creams, lotions, sprays or drops, which are often administered for skin infections.

Topical and oral antibiotics are for less-serious infections. More serious infections, where the medicine has to be absorbed more quickly into the bloodstream, have to be treated by antibiotics administered through injection or drip infusion.

It is essential to finish taking a prescribed course of antibiotics, even if you feel better before the course has ended The prescribed doseage is the estimated time it will take to completely kill off the bacteria. Midway through a course, you may have killed off enough bacteria to not be under the effect of the infection, but stopping the course of antibiotics then can leave the remaining bacteria become resistant to the antibiotic.

But what if you missing a dose of antibiotics? If that is the case, then it is advisable to take that dose as soon as you remember and then continue to take your course of antibiotics as normal. However, if you have missed a dose and only remembered it when it is nearly time for the next dose, it is preferable to simply skip it and merely to continue your regular dosing schedule. Taking two doses only encourages the body to anticipate needing the double doseage in order to fight the infection, and messes up the body’s resistance levels.

Furthermore, there is a higher risk of side effects if you take two doses closer together than recommended. You may experience effects such as pain in your stomach, diarrhoea, and feeling or being sick. Most side effects are gastro-intestinal, and overdosing on anti-biotics may cause bloating, indigestion and diarrhoea.

Some people may have an allergic reaction to antibiotics, especially penicillin and a type called cephalosporins. In very rare cases, this can lead to a serious allergic reaction (anaphylaxis), which is a medical emergency. Sufferers carry an epi-pen and the drug is administered in the bloodstream through injection.

Antibiotics are not over the counter medicines and you should never use any remaining tablets arising from someonbe else’s incomplete course, as you may experience different reactions to the drug. Some antibiotics are also not suitable for people with certain medical conditions, or women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, as they may, for example, adversely affect the lining of the stomach. You should only ever take antibiotics prescribed for you and also never pass them on to someone else.

Antibiotics are only still chemicals and depending on the constituents, some can also react unpredictably with other medications, such as the oral contraceptive pill and alcohol. It’s important to read the information leaflet that comes with your medication carefully and discuss any concerns with your pharmacist or GP.

There are hundreds of different types of antibiotics, but most of them can be broadly classified into six groups. These are outlined below.

Penicillins (such as penicillin and amoxicillin) – widely used to treat a variety of infections, including skin infections, chest infections and urinary tract infections

Cephalosporins (such as cephalexin) – used to treat a wide range of infections, but some are also effective for treating more serious infections, such as septicaemia and meningitis

Aminoglycosides (such as gentamicin and tobramycin) – tend to only be used in hospital to treat very serious illnesses such as septicaemia, as they can cause serious side effects, including hearing loss and kidney damage; they’re usually given by injection, but may be given as drops for some ear or eye infections

Tetracyclines (such as tetracycline and doxycycline)– can be used to treat a wide range of infections, but are commonly used to treat moderate to severe acne and rosacea

Macrolides (such as erythromycin and clarithromycin) – can be particularly useful for treating lung and chest infections, or an alternative for people with a penicillin allergy, or to treat penicillin-resistant strains of bacteria

Fluoroquinolones (such as ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin) – broad-spectrum antibiotics that can be used to treat a wide range of infections

The use of antibiotics especially for conditions that aren’t serious has led to a rise in the number of high-tolerant infections, or superbugs. These superbugs and have a high tolerance to many anti-bodies and include:

methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
Clostridium difficile (C. diff)
the bacteria that cause multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB)
carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE)

Ridding the world of these types of infections can be challenging, and these superbugs are becoming an increasing cause of disability and death across the world. The biggest worry is that new strains of bacteria may emerge with higher levels of resistance and that can’t be effectively treated by any existing antibiotics, so we have to be wary in how we use them, and when we suffer from minor infections, let the body try to fight off the infection instead of relying on antibiotics which may weaken the body’s immunity in the long run.