Sometimes it’s phrased as a question. Sometimes it isn’t. In telemedicine especially, many patients request azithromycin by name within the first minute of the visit. The symptoms are familiar. Runny nose. Congestion. Post-nasal drip. Scratchy throat. Maybe a cough that started yesterday. No fever. No shortness of breath. No focal findings anyone could reasonably point to as bacterial.

But they’re convinced the Z-Pak will help them get better faster. They’ve taken it before. It worked last time. Or at least they felt better a few days later and connected the dots.

This didn’t happen by accident.

Azithromycin earned its place in outpatient medicine because it was easier to tolerate than older antibiotics like erythromycin, had fewer drug interactions than clarithromycin, and came packaged in a way that felt efficient. Six pills. Five days. Done. The Z-Pak became a symbol of modern medicine that didn’t slow you down.

Over time, it also became the antibiotic people expected.

In telemedicine, that expectation is even stronger. There’s no exam table. No stethoscope. No labs. No chest X-ray down the hall. The visit is brief by design. When a patient feels sick and wants something tangible, the Z-Pak becomes the path of least resistance. Prescribing it can shorten the encounter. It avoids a long explanation. It reduces the risk of a bad review. It keeps patient satisfaction scores high. It keeps supervisors and clinic managers happy. Everyone moves on to the next visit.

I understand why this happens. I’ve seen it from the inside.

But convenience doesn’t make a treatment safe or appropriate.

Azithromycin does not treat viral infections. It does not help the common cold. It does not clear post-nasal drip. It does not shorten the course of uncomplicated upper respiratory infections. When patients feel better after taking it, they almost always would have improved anyway.

What it does do is expose people to real risk.

Azithromycin can prolong the QT interval. That matters. QT prolongation can predispose patients to dangerous heart rhythms, including torsades de pointes and sudden cardiac death. This risk is higher in people with underlying heart disease, electrolyte abnormalities, or those taking other QT-prolonging medications, but it is not zero in otherwise healthy adults. Large observational studies have shown an increased risk of cardiovascular death during azithromycin treatment compared with other antibiotics or no antibiotics at all.

That risk is invisible to patients. They don’t feel their QT interval getting longer. They just know they want something to help them feel better.

Antibiotics also carry more familiar side effects. Nausea. Diarrhea. Abdominal cramping. Yeast infections. Rashes. Allergic reactions. These are not rare, and they are not trivial when the medication wasn’t needed in the first place.

Then there’s resistance. Every unnecessary antibiotic course applies selective pressure. Azithromycin resistance is already a growing problem in common respiratory pathogens. When we reach for it reflexively, we make it less useful for the patients who actually need it.

The harder part of these visits is the explaining.

It takes longer to walk someone through why their symptoms are viral. Why time, fluids, nasal saline, antihistamines, or intranasal steroids actually help. Why rest matters. Why antibiotics won’t fix inflammation or mucus production. Why feeling miserable does not automatically mean something dangerous is happening.

It’s much faster to send a prescription.

But faster is not better medicine.

I get patients asking for Z-Paks every day that I work in telemedicine. It’s so common that it happens at least once a day, if not three or four times a day. One example sticks with me. A patient requested a Z-Pak for congestion and sinus pressure that had been present for two days. No fever. No facial pain. No worsening course. When I explained why antibiotics wouldn’t help, they were frustrated at first. We talked through what sinus infections actually look like and when antibiotics are appropriate. We discussed symptom control instead. Two days later, they messaged to say they felt better and were glad they didn’t take an antibiotic they didn’t need.

That outcome required time. It required education. It required saying no.

Not every visit goes that smoothly. Some patients remain disappointed. Some leave poor reviews. That pressure is real, especially in high-volume telemedicine environments.

But prescribing antibiotics to keep the peace comes at a cost. It shifts risk onto the patient. It shifts harm into the future. And it reinforces the idea that medicine should always offer a pill, even when the best treatment is patience and support.

Azithromycin became dominant because it was easy. That same ease is why we need to be more careful with it now.

Scott Rennie, D.O.

Sources:

Ray WA, Murray KT, Hall K, Arbogast PG, Stein CM. Azithromycin and the risk of cardiovascular death. New England Journal of Medicine. 2012;366:1881-1890.

Sax PE. How the Z-Pak Took Over Outpatient Medicine. Substack lecture notes and essay.

Svanstrom H et al. Use of azithromycin and death from cardiovascular causes. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368:1704-1712.

FDA Drug Safety Communication. Azithromycin and risk of potentially fatal heart rhythms. US Food and Drug Administration. 2013.

CDC. Antibiotic use in the United States: Progress and opportunities. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Board Certified in Obesity Medicine and Family Medicine

This blog is for educational purposes only and does not constitute individual medical advice. Always consult your own physician before making changes to your health, medications, or treatment plan.