🟡 Preliminary Evidence
Antibiotic prophylaxis—the administration of antibiotics to prevent bacterial infections in at-risk individuals—is a clinically sound practice when appropriately targeted. However, a new commentary warns that the growing tendency to prescribe antibiotics “just in case” is silently accelerating the global crisis of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), one of the most pressing threats to modern medicine. The distinction between evidence-based prophylaxis and defensive “just in case” prescribing represents a critical fault line in how healthcare systems manage infection risk.
Key takeaways
- Antibiotic prophylaxis is medically justified in defined high-risk populations, but “just in case” prescribing lacks clear clinical indication
- Unnecessary antibiotic use drives the emergence of resistant bacterial strains, making infections harder to treat globally
- Healthcare systems must distinguish between evidence-based prophylaxis and defensive prescribing to preserve antibiotic efficacy
The case for cautious prophylaxis
Antibiotic prophylaxis serves a legitimate role in clinical medicine. According to the World Health Organization, prophylactic antibiotics are appropriately used in surgical settings to prevent surgical site infections, in immunocompromised patients at risk of opportunistic bacterial disease, and in individuals with specific conditions such as rheumatic heart disease or endocarditis risk. In these contexts, the clinical benefit of preventing serious infection outweighs the risks of antibiotic exposure.
The issue emerges, however, when healthcare providers move beyond evidence-based indications and prescribe antibiotics defensively—administering them not because a clear risk justifies it, but because “it might help.” This practice, termed “just in case” prescribing in the commentary, represents a subtle but consequential shift in clinical decision-making.
The Spectrum of Antibiotic Prescribing: From Evidence-Based to Defensive
Clinical justification varies across prescribing contexts; defensive “just in case” use lacks clear indication
Source: Clinical practice continuum | Georgian Medical Journal News
The antimicrobial resistance linkage
Every course of antibiotics—whether necessary or not—creates selective pressure that favors the survival and proliferation of resistant bacterial strains. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that inappropriate antibiotic use in both humans and agriculture is a leading driver of AMR globally. When antibiotics are prescribed without clear clinical indication, patients are exposed to side effects and drug interactions without the corresponding clinical benefit, while simultaneously contributing to the reservoir of resistant organisms in their microbiota and in the broader community.
The commentary highlights a troubling paradox: the same defensive impulse that drives “just in case” prescribing—the desire to prevent harm—ultimately causes harm by eroding the efficacy of these life-saving drugs. This represents a collective action problem: individual physicians may perceive a small risk reduction from prophylaxis, but the aggregate effect of millions of unnecessary prescriptions destabilizes antibiotic efficacy for entire populations.
Closing the prescribing gap
Addressing “just in case” antibiotic prescribing requires systematic change across healthcare education, institutional practice, and professional accountability. According to WHO guidance on stewardship, effective interventions include clear clinical protocols that define when prophylaxis is indicated, provider feedback on prescribing patterns, and institutional antibiograms that track local resistance trends to inform treatment decisions. The quality and safety framework increasingly incorporates antibiotic stewardship as a core metric of healthcare quality.
Georgia’s healthcare system, like many middle-income countries, faces particular challenges in balancing infection prevention with stewardship. Access to evidence-based health policy guidance and investment in laboratory diagnostics—to rapidly identify bacterial infections and guide targeted treatment—are essential to moving beyond defensive prescribing patterns.
The growing tendency to prescribe antibiotics “just in case” without clear clinical indication silently accelerates antimicrobial resistance, eroding the efficacy of these critical drugs for entire populations.
— Commentary authors, Medical Xpress (2026)
What this means
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between prophylactic antibiotics and “just in case” antibiotics?
Prophylactic antibiotics are prescribed based on clear clinical evidence of infection risk in specific populations—such as surgical patients or those with immunocompromise. “Just in case” antibiotics lack this specific indication and are prescribed defensively based on general concern about possible infection, not evidence that the patient is at elevated risk.
How does unnecessary antibiotic use contribute to antimicrobial resistance?
Every antibiotic course creates selective pressure that allows resistant bacterial strains to survive and multiply. When antibiotics are prescribed without clear indication, this pressure accumulates across millions of patients and healthcare settings, gradually eroding antibiotic efficacy in the broader population and making infections harder to treat for everyone.
What can healthcare systems do to reduce “just in case” prescribing?
The World Health Organization recommends stewardship programs that include clear clinical protocols, rapid diagnostic testing, provider feedback on prescribing patterns, and education on the risks of antimicrobial resistance.
The commentary serves as a reminder that antimicrobial resistance is not simply a problem of biological inevitability—it is a choice embedded in prescribing decisions. By moving from defensive “just in case” prescribing toward evidence-based prophylaxis, healthcare systems can preserve antibiotic efficacy while still protecting patients who face genuine infection risk. This shift requires clinical discipline, institutional support, and a collective commitment to stewardship over convenience.
Source: Researchers warn against the increasing use of ‘just in case’ antibiotics
Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer. This article is health journalism intended for general information and education. It is not medical advice and is not a substitute for professional diagnosis or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider about your individual circumstances. Full disclaimer →
Related Coverage
Editorial standards. This article was produced under the GMJ News editorial process, with oversight by the GMJ Editorial Board. Our editorial process. Spotted an error? Contact the editorial team.
