Penicillin was first used in the 1940s to treat gonorrhe...

Question

Penicillin was first used in the 1940s to treat gonorrhea infections produced by the bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae. In 1984, according to the CDC, fewer than 1% of gonorrhea infections were caused by penicillin-resistant N. gonorrhoeae. By 1990, more than 10% of cases were penicillin-resistant, and a few years later the level of resistance was at greater than 95%. Almost every year the CDC issues new treatment guidelines for gonorrhea that identify the recommended antibiotic drugs and dosages.

What are the long-term implications of these frequent changes in treatment recommendations for the patient population?

Accepted Answer

Hi, everyone. Here's our next problem. The researchers collected bacterial samples from 100 animals on farms that use antibiotics in their feed. And 100 animals on farms that do not use antibiotics in their feed. They tested the bacterial samples for resistance against five commonly used antibiotics. The results of the study showed that 80% of the animals raised on antibiotic using farms had bacterial infections that were resistant to at least one antibiotic. In contrast, only 20% of animals on antibiotic free farms had infections that were resistant to at least one antibiotic. The researchers concluded that the use of antibiotics in livestock feed is contributing to the prevalence of antibiotic resistance bacteria in both animals and humans. What are the potential consequences of the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock for human health choice? A says increased risk of antibiotic resistant infections in humans who consume contaminated meat. Choice. B says decreased risk of antibiotic resistance infection, antibiotic resistant infections in humans who consume contaminated meat. Choi says no impact on the prevalence of antibiotic resistant infections in humans who consume contaminated meat and choice d increased risk of food poisoning due to the presence of antibiotic, resistance, resistant bacteria in meat. Well, we're showing that there are far more infections with antibiotic resistant bacteria in animals on these farms. So when we think about potential consequences of that use of antibiotics, we would think about the likelihood of humans contracting antibiotic resistant infections from contaminated meat. So the animal was infected with this resistant bacteria. If the food is undercooked and contaminated the person that consumes, it can contract an infection that is resistant to an antibiotic. So that would lead us to choice. A increased risk of antibiotic resistant infections in humans. Since there are more bacterial strains present that are resistant, there's an increased risk of becoming infected with one of those strains. Choice B has decreased risk of these antibiotic resistant infections, but that would not be correct as we would definitely see an increased risk based on more streams being present. Choice C says no impact. That's not our answer for the same reason as choice B is incorrect. And then finally, choice D is increased risk of food poisoning. Well, food poisoning means being infected with a bacterial strain from eating contaminated meat. But the actual risk of contracting a bacterial infection isn't changed. It's the risk of contracting a antibiotic resistant bacterial infection that's changed. So that's why choice D is not correct. So again, what are the potential consequences of the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock? For human health? Choice? A increased risk of antibiotic resistant infections in humans who consume contaminated meat. See you in the next video.

My Courses

Chemistry

Biology

Math

Physics

Business

Social Sciences

Programming

Product & Marketing