Volume 10, Number 11—November 2004
Perspective
Trachoma Decline and Widespread Use of Antimicrobial Drugs
Jaya D. Chidambaram*, Mariko Bird*, Vivian Schiedler*, Alicia M. Fry†, Travis Porco‡, Ramesh C. Bhatta§, Hem Jha§, J.S.P. Chaudary§, Bruce Gaynor*, Elizabeth Yi*, John P. Whitcher*, Susie Osaki-Holm*, and Thomas M. Lietman*
Table
Comparison of antimicrobial drug use within and outside a trachoma programa
| DDD/person/year to all ages | Prescriptions/person/ year to preschool children | |
|---|---|---|
| Antimicrobial pressure from pharmacies | ||
| All antimicrobial drug prescriptions (from survey) | 3.0 | 1.8 |
| Antichlamydial prescriptions (from survey) | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Antimicrobial pressure from trachoma program | ||
| Annual azithromycin treatment with 100% coverage (theoretical) | 2.3 | 1 |
| Annual azithromycin treatment with 80% coverage (theoretical) | 1.9 | 0.8 |
aPharmacy survey data showing the total quantity of antimicrobial drugs used in Geta subdistrict and the proportion of antimicrobial drug with antichlamydial activity. An annual trachoma program theoretically gives 1 g of azithromycin to every adult (3.3 DDDs) and a lower dosage to children, averaging approximately 2.3 DDDs per person for all ages. We estimate from a mathematical model that mass antimicrobial treatment every 1.7 years would be sufficient to eventually eliminate ocular chlamydial infection from this region (13). DDD, defined daily dose, the average adult daily dosage for a drug’s primary indication.
Page created: April 22, 2011
Page updated: April 22, 2011
Page reviewed: April 22, 2011
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.