Dog Bites are an Indication for Routine Antibiotic Therapy

Role of prophylactic antibiotics in treating patients presenting to emergency care with dog bites

Dog bites account for 250,000 attendances for urgent and emergency care each year. They pose risks including infections with potentially life-threatening complications. This article scrutinises the evidence underpinning the use of prophylactic antibiotics in dog bite wounds. A focused literature review involving four databases specialising in peer-reviewed healthcare literature was conducted to identify the highest quality evidence, which was then systematically appraised. The use of antibiotics in treating dog bite wounds to reduce the risk of infection is largely supported by the evidence. However, significant limitations exist in the research, with patient-specific criteria for administering prophylactic antibiotics and the associated risks and financial costs not addressed. Further research into antibiotic treatment for dog bites would help to support clinicians, nurse practitioners and the wider nursing and allied health professional team in urgent and emergency care by informing safe practice and in turn improving patient care, cost-effectiveness and antimicrobial stewardship.

Indications for medical antibiotic prophylaxis and potential targets for antimicrobial stewardship intervention: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Most of the antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) literature has focused on antimicrobial consumption for the treatment of infections, for the prophylaxis of surgical site infection and for the prevention of endocarditis. The role of AMS for medical antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) has not been adequately addressed.

AIMS

To identify targets for AMS interventions for medical AP in adult patients.

SOURCES

Targeted searches were conducted in PubMed.

CONTENT

The various indications for medical AP and relevant evidence from practice guidelines are outlined. The following were identified as potential targets for AMS interventions: (a) addressing under-utilization of antibiotic-sparing strategies (e.g. for recurrent urinary tract infections, recurrent soft-tissue infections, recurrent exacerbations associated with bronchiectasis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), (b) reducing unnecessary AP beyond recommended indications (e.g. for acute pancreatitis, bite wounds, or urinary catheter manipulations), (c) reducing the use of AP with a broader spectrum than necessary, (d) reducing the use of AP for longer than the recommended duration (e.g. AP for prevention of osteomyelitis in open fractures or AP in high-risk neutropenia), (e) evaluating the role of antibiotic cycling to prevent the emergence of resistance during prolonged AP (e.g. in recurrent urinary tract infections or prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis), and (f) addressing research gaps regarding appropriate indications or antibiotic regimens for medical prophylaxis.

IMPLICATIONS

This review summarizes current trends in AP and proposes targets for AMS interventions.