By H. J. Bensted, W. Bulloch, L. Dudgeon, A. G. Gardner, E. D. W. Greig, D. Harvey, W. F. Harvey, T. J. Mackie, R. A. O'Brien, H. M. Perry, H. Scutze, P. Bruce White, W. J. Wilson. London, 1929. His Majesty's Stationery Office. Pp. 1–482
by A. Trevor Willis, M.D., B.S. (Melb.), Ph.D. (Leeds), M.C.Path., M.C.P.A., Reader in Microbiology, Monash University, formerly Lecturer in Bacteriology, University of Leeds. xiv + 234 pages, illustrated, second edition. Butterworth Inc., Washington. 1965. $8.50
The amebicidal efficiency of certain antibiotic drugs has been established, but no single antibiotic agent has yet proved to be completely curative, nor have the therapeutic achievements even exceeded those attainable with nonantibiotic amebicides. With the introduction of each protozoicidal antibiotic drug, initial therapeutic acclamation has been enthusiastic. Time and further clinical experience have, in many instances, depreciated their status. The incidence of recurrences and objectionable side effects has prevented most antibiotic agents, when used alone, from being “ideal” amebicides.
Analysis of the extremes in therapeutic achievement reveals variance in susceptibility of parasitic strain and in severity of the disease, as well as inconsistency in mode of administration and inadequacy and lack of uniformity in follow-up examinations. Acquired alteration in bacterial and amebic sensitivity may also be hypothesized. Critical comparative review suggests that the antibiotic drugs have not impressively reduced the rate of recurrence below that reported for nonantibiotic amebicides.