關於 antibiotic selection ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【藥事知多D】暗瘡藥知多D：抗生素

暗瘡藥有很多種。

其中一種便是抗生素。

至於抗生素到底又跟暗瘡有什麼關係呢？

哦，在相當程度上，暗瘡其實算是一種細菌感染，主要源自痤瘡桿菌(Propionibacterium acnes)這種厭氧菌(Anaerobes)。

痤瘡桿菌較容易生存在一個低氧、無氧的環境。要是毛囊出現堵塞，便可能會製造一個有利的環境刺激痤瘡桿菌大量繁殖並分解皮脂成為游離脂肪酸誘發暗瘡。

所以理論上，只要能夠KO這些痤瘡桿菌，便可能會減少游離脂肪酸(Free Fatty Acids, FFA)的產生，治療暗瘡。

至於常用的抗生素主要有以下兩類：

一、四環素(Tetracycline)，例如Doxycycline、Minocycline、Tetracycline

除了可能會KO痤瘡桿菌外，四環素原來還可能會減少皮脂腺(Sebaceous Gland)裡的角蛋白(Keratin)，減少毛囊角栓(Follicular Plug)的產生，減少毛孔堵塞。[1]

在副作用上，因為四環素能夠跟鈣質結合，所以較容易會沉積在一些鈣化進行中的組織裡，例如正在處於發育時期的牙齒、骨骼，從而可能會造成色素沉澱，讓牙齒發黃、染灰、變啡，影響外觀，所以一般不建議孕婦、10歲以下的兒童使用，一來避免妨礙胎兒的骨骼成長，二來減少兒童的牙齒出現變色的機會。

還有四環素可能會導致皮膚出現光敏感性(Photosensitivity)，俗稱「光敏感」，簡單說，便是「見光死」……不、不、不，更正，應該是見光便致敏。所以一般建議需要做好防曬措施。

在用法上，因為四環素能夠跟鈣質結合，自然不宜跟奶類製品、豆類製品、乾果果仁、綠葉蔬菜（例如波菜）這些蘊含豐富鈣質的食品同服，避免裡面的鈣質妨礙四環素在消化道的吸收。

所以最理想的服藥時間當然是餐前服用，目的在避免兩者在消化道裡相遇。

相較Tetracycline而言，Doxycycline的藥效較佳。

至於相較Tetracycline而言，Minocycline的藥效同樣較佳，因為Minocycline擁有較大的脂溶性，所以較能滲進皮脂腺裡面提升藥效。[2]

在副作用上，相較Doxycycline、Tetracycline而言，Minocycline的副作用較多[3]，這或許是因為Minocycline的結構跟Doxycycline、Tetracycline略有不同吧？

所以Minocycline還可能會出現其他副作用，例如皮膚色素過度沉著(Hyperpigmentation)。[4]

二、Macrolide，例如Erythromycin

除了可能會KO痤瘡桿菌外，Macrolide還擁有消炎的技能，紓緩暗瘡的炎症症狀。

說到暗瘡，相較四環素而言，兩者的藥效沒有明顯的差異，不過Erythromycin的抗藥性一般較高。[5][6]

針對抗藥性，常用的對策主要有以下兩個：

第一，要是Erythromycin結合鋅(Zinc)，便可能會促進Erythromycin進入毛皮脂單位(Pilosebaceous Unit)提升實力。[7]

第二，要是Erythromycin配合Benzoyl Peroxide這種外用暗瘡藥，內外夾擊，雙管齊下，理論上，或許可以減低出現抗藥性的機會。

在副作用上，主要是腸胃不適，所以一般建議餐後服用。

在使用上，相較四環素而言，Erythromycin一般是後備。簡單說，一般只會在四環素這個正選不能上場的情況下才會使用，例如用藥者不能適應四環素的副作用，或者痤瘡桿菌已經對四環素出現抗藥性。[5][6]

（如欲了解更多用藥資訊，歡迎看看「小小藥罐子」網誌。）

💊💊💊💊💊💊💊
BLOG➡️http://pegashadraymak.blogspot.com/
IG➡️https://www.instagram.com/pegashadraymak/
YT➡️https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQOMojMd6q7XnESMWwldPhQ

📕📕📕📕📕📕📕
著作➡️藥事知多D、用藥知多D、藥房事件簿、家居用藥攻略（各大書店有售）

Reference:
1. Sadick NS. Antibiotics: unapproved uses or indications. Clin Dermatol. 2000;18:11-16.
2. Chosidow O, Poli F, Naline E, et al. Comedonal diffusion of minocycline in acne. Dermatology. 1998;196:162.
3. Sturkenboom MCJM, Meier CR, Jick H. Stricker BHC. Minocycline and lupuslike syndrome in acne patients. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:493-497.
4. Mouton RW, Jordaan HF, Schneider JW. A new type of minocycline-induced cutaneous hyperpigmentation. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2004;29:8-14.
5. Ross JI, Snelling AM, Carnegie E, et al. Antibiotic-resistant acne: lessons from Europe. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148:467-478.
6. Eady EA, Gloor M, Leyden JJ. Propionibacterium acnes resistance: a world wide problem. Dermatology. 2003;206:54-56.
7. Tan HH. Topical antibacterial treatments for acne vulgaris: comparative review and guide to selection. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2004;5:79-84.

Shock 的治療目標 Early goal-directed therapy

Early goal-directed therapy: do we have a definitive answer?
by Daniel De Backer| Jean-Louis Vincent

Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) for the treatment of septic shock was first proposed in 2001 by Rivers et al. [1]. These authors reported that patients with hypotension refractory to a fluid challenge of 20–30 ml/kg of crystalloids over 30 min or with plasma lactate levels of at least 4 mEq/l and who were treated to restore and maintain a central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) of greater than 70 % had lower 28-day mortality rates than control patients (33 vs 49 %). That publication generated considerable enthusiasm but also much debate. The resuscitation protocol was incorporated into the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines [2] and several uncontrolled studies reported similar improvements in outcome [3–5]. However, concerns were raised about the single-center nature of the trial, the limited sample size (263 patients), the multiple interventions proposed in the EGDT package making it difficult to differentiate which was most effective, and the potential influence of confounding factors including the increased presence of doctors at the bedside of patients randomized to the intervention.
Three large-scale multicenter studies published in 2014 and 2015 [6–8] were unable to replicate the results of the Rivers study, but is there a plausible explanation for this? Among the important differences between the trials, the mortality rate in the control groups in the recent trials was markedly lower than that in the Rivers study (Table 1). In addition, ScvO2 values in the study groups were markedly reduced (to an average of 49 %) in the Rivers trial but were already within the greater than 70 % target zone in the three other trials. One explanation may be that Rivers et al. treated a special patient population with severe comorbidities and/or who presented quite late to the emergency department. Another possible explanation is that there has been a marked improvement in prehospital and initial care of patients with septic shock, maybe as a direct result of the Rivers trial and the SSC guidelines. However, adequacy of antibiotic treatment and amounts of fluid administered prior to randomization do not seem to account for these differences (Table 1).
...
This patient selection issue does not challenge the internal validity of these recent trials, but clearly raises questions about their external validity. These trials have indicated that patients with low severity septic shock who rapidly respond to therapy do not benefit from routine EGDT. However, the results of the Rivers trial have not been invalidated as patients with high disease severity and low ScvO2 were not included in these recent trials. EGDT may still be beneficial in the most severely ill patients, especially when less experienced staff who may appreciate using simple protocols are in charge.

http://bit.ly/22uWfBQ