International journal of antimicrobial agents · 2025
Attitudes to phage therapy among Australian infectious diseases physicians.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Plymoth Martin, Lynch Stephanie A, Khatami Ameneh, Sinclair Holly A, Paterson David L, Sacher Jessica C, Zheng Jan, Lin Ruby Cy, Iredell Jonathan R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Due to the rise in antimicrobial resistance, there has been an increased interest in phage therapy to treat multidrug-resistant infections. In Australia, phage therapy is predominantly used in small clinical studies or for compassionate use; however, despite its potential expansion in modern medicine, the perception of phage therapy among medical professionals remains largely unknown.
METHODS: We conducted a national survey of Australian infectious diseases and clinical microbiology advanced trainees and specialists using an online mailing list to assess their knowledge, areas of interest, and concerns around the use of phage therapy in clinical practice in Australia; with 92 eligible respondents.
RESULTS: Most respondents believed that the current national plan for controlling antimicrobial resistance is inadequate and that phage therapy may be an effective solution; with 87 (97%) indicating that they would consider using phage therapy meeting established guidelines for purity and safety. There was a preference for bespoke therapy, with Gram-negative pathogens highlighted as priority targets. Alongside the phage therapy delivery protocols, therapeutic phage monitoring was considered important. Cystic fibrosis, lung-infections, prosthetic device/related infections, and infections among patients following transplantation and/or immunosuppression were highly ranked in terms of priorities for clinical syndromes. Accessibility was highlighted as a barrier to phage therapy, specifically, timely access (n = 66; 72%) and logistics of phage procurement and administration (n = 64; 70%).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest the support of phage therapy among infectious diseases and clinical microbiology advanced trainees and specialists in Australia, and highlights areas of focus and priority in order to advance phage therapy.
METHODS: We conducted a national survey of Australian infectious diseases and clinical microbiology advanced trainees and specialists using an online mailing list to assess their knowledge, areas of interest, and concerns around the use of phage therapy in clinical practice in Australia; with 92 eligible respondents.
RESULTS: Most respondents believed that the current national plan for controlling antimicrobial resistance is inadequate and that phage therapy may be an effective solution; with 87 (97%) indicating that they would consider using phage therapy meeting established guidelines for purity and safety. There was a preference for bespoke therapy, with Gram-negative pathogens highlighted as priority targets. Alongside the phage therapy delivery protocols, therapeutic phage monitoring was considered important. Cystic fibrosis, lung-infections, prosthetic device/related infections, and infections among patients following transplantation and/or immunosuppression were highly ranked in terms of priorities for clinical syndromes. Accessibility was highlighted as a barrier to phage therapy, specifically, timely access (n = 66; 72%) and logistics of phage procurement and administration (n = 64; 70%).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest the support of phage therapy among infectious diseases and clinical microbiology advanced trainees and specialists in Australia, and highlights areas of focus and priority in order to advance phage therapy.