Slashdot Mirror
Strep Bacteria Resistant to New Antibiotic
Aaron Rowe writes "MSNBC and The Lancet medical journal have reported that the new oxazolidinone antibiotic Zyvox is ineffective against some forms of Staphylococcus aureus."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Much like Streptococcus != Staphylococcus.
The subject says Strep, but the summary mentions Staph.
When the first antibiotics (penicillin) were made, it took a lot of time for bacteria to evolve and become imune. If they now have suceeded in becoming imune soon after its discovery, normal antibiotics (chemicals) are likely not to be effective much longer. The whole way of thinking antibiotics... bacterias always adapt after some time.
We need to think of a new way to fight bacterias or we're all going to die!! cool...
And I don't feel a little sorry for the great farmaceutical industries
reason defies logic
Pharmacia Comments on Lancet Research Letter
PEAPACK, NJ (July 19, 2001) Pharmacia Corporation (NYSE: PHA) commented today on a letter* being published in the July 21 issue of The Lancet that reports the development of linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in one patient.
Pharmacia in vitro studies and laboratory studies conducted by other researchers have shown that linezolid-resistant S. aureus would develop infrequently. As a result of this research, it is presumed that resistance would likely only occur in the most extreme clinical conditions. These data have already been reported to the global medical community. No other cases of linezolid-resistant S. aureus have been reported, despite the fact that more than 80,000 patients have been treated worldwide with linezolid, marketed by Pharmacia as ZYVOX(tm) (linezolid injection, tablets and for oral suspension) in the US and 15 other countries.
One of the authors of the research letter, Robert Moellering, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, provided additional perspective to the case reported in the research letter. "Despite the discovery of this single report of resistant S. aureus, linezolid remains an important part of the physician's armamentarium for the treatment of infections, including those due to resistant bacteria and one that may allow patients to leave the hospital earlier."
"At each stage of the development and market introduction of ZYVOX, we have proactively shared our research and knowledge with physicians and regulatory officials around the globe," said Cameron Durrant, M.D., Vice President, Infectious Diseases, Global Prescription Business, Pharmacia Corporation. "We are interested in the experience of all patients treated with ZYVOX, including this specific patient, and are confident that the unmatched efficacy and convenient formulations of ZYVOX will continue to provide great potential benefit to patients."
Pharmacia's preclinical and clinical experience to date has defined the risk factors for development of resistance. These are:
- Indwelling prosthetic device
- Long-term therapy
- Inadequate dose
- Undrained abscess
The patient history described in the letter to The Lancet is generally consistent with these findings. Pharmacia continues to actively monitor for potential emerging resistance.ZYVOX comes from the first completely new class of antibiotics to reach hospitals in 35 years. ZYVOX attacks bacteria in a way unlike any existing therapies. ZYVOX attacks bacteria by stopping protein production at a very early point in the process that is different from any other antibiotic. Studies have shown that ZYVOX is effective against a broad range of Gram-positive bacteria including those that are resistant to other antibiotics.
ZYVOX is approved for adults in the treatment of nosocomial (i.e. hospital-acquired) pneumonia, community-acquired pneumonia, complicated and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections caused by susceptible strains of designated organisms. ZYVOX is also approved for use in complicated skin infections and nosocomial pneumonia caused by certain sensitive and resistant pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
ZYVOX is generally well tolerated. The adverse events reported for patients receiving ZYVOX and comparators in clinical trials were similar. The most common adverse events for patients treated with ZYVOX were diarrhea, nausea, headache and vomiting. Myelosuppression has been reported in patients receiving ZYVOX. Therefore, complete blood counts should be monitored weekly. Discontinuation of ZYVOX should be considered in patients who develop or have worsening myelosuppression.
Pharmacia (NYSE: PHA) is a top-tier global pharmaceutical company with a leading agricultural subsidiary. Pharmacia's innovative medicines and other products save lives and enhance health and wellness. Pharmacia's 59,000 people work together with many diverse stakeholders to bring these benefits to people around the world, and to create new health solutions for the future.
*Tsiodras S, Gold H, Sakoulas G, et al. Linezolid resistance in a clinical isolate of Staphylococcus aureus. The Lancet 358 (July 21, 2001):207-208. Certain statements contained in these comments are "forward-looking statements" provided under the "safe harbor" protection of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Examples of forward-looking statements are anticipated financial results, financial projections, business prospects, future product performance, future research and development results, Expected regulatory actions and other matters that are not historical facts. These forward-looking statements are based on the information available, and the expectations and assumptions deemed reasonable by the Company, at the time when the statements are made. However, because these forward-looking statements are subject to many risks, uncertainties and changes over time, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Among the many factors that may cause or contribute to actual results being materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements are acquisitions, divestitures, mergers, licenses or strategic initiatives that change the Company' structure or business; competitive effects from current and new products, including generic products, sold by other companies; price constraints imposed by managed care groups, institutions and government agencies; governmental actions to provide lower cost pharmaceutical products; the Company' ability to continue to discover and license new compounds, develop product candidates, obtain regulatory approvals and market new products; the Company' ability to secure and defend its intellectual property rights; the Company' ability to attract and retain management and other key employees; product developments, including adverse reactions or regulatory actions; social, legal and political developments, especially those relating to health care reform, pharmaceutical pricing and governmental and public acceptance of biotechnology; unusual seasonal conditions in agricultural markets; new product, antitrust, intellectual property or environmental liabilities; changes in foreign currency exchange rates or general economic or business conditions; changes in applicable laws and regulations; changes in accounting standards or practices; and such other factors that may be described in Companies' filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
One should not take this development as a sign that bacteria are doing things they shouldn't be doing. It's a matter of natural selection- antibiotic applied to colony, most members die, some with resistance to the drug survive. It's the same process, simplified, that most likely gave rise to multicellular organisms, worms, fish, amphibians, corals, mammals, and ultimately humans. While it's certainly worth noting, it's not like it isn't expected. Life changes. Life evolves. Life moves on to new forms.
That said, it does disturb me. One would think that with multibillion dollar budgets pharmaceutical company researchers could have found a drug effective enough to delay this sort of resistance. It is essential that we find a way to control staphylococcus infections. This disease and others cause many deaths, and can make entering a hospital hazardous. I myself lost a good family friend when staph germs entered her body during heart surgery and simply overwhelmed her body. One of my friends has lost a good deal of his kidney function due to extensive scarring of his kidneys from a staph infection. (It would be wise to point out that recent examinations have revealed the presence of a new growing kidney, complete with ureter, that is forming from the cortex of one of his kidneys- possibly due to healing processes gone amuck).
Staph is a scourge of humanity, and it must be fought. Otherwise, what other suffering will take place?
There was a study of rats that were raised in anaseptically clean environments, and lo and behold, their immune systems bairly developed. Perhaps it would be wise to let your children overcome an infection or two on their own, rather than attempt to fix it via antibiotics every time.
here for more info
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
How many of you use anti-bacterial products? Until we start using anti-bacterial agents judiciously, bacteria will continue evolving to this new environment.
:P
I choose to know use any anti-bacterial agents, with the exception of bleach, which kills by a different type of pathway than anti-biotics.
Unforunately, this isn't a case of something where one person can make a difference. As long a huge percentage of the people in this world (mostly Americans and Canadians, I imagine) continue overusing and over perscribing anti-biotics, we will just be making the bacteria populations stronger and better adapted to whatever drugs we throw at them.
For starters, try to get everyone in your household to stop using anti-bacterial products unless they need them. The people with whom you interact the most are the ones you live with, and swap the most bacteria.
No, this isn't just one of those things that "environmentalists" talk about. The possible danger is very real. That's evolution for you.
Looking through my roomate's things, I find:
* Anti-bacterial deoderant
* Anti-bacterial shower soap bar
* Anti-bacterial toothpaste
* Anti-bacterial mouthwash
* Anti-bacterial liquid hand soap
* Anti-bacterial hand lotion (why?!)
There are probably more around here, stashed somewhere.
Yes, it'll even happen if you're a x-ian who "doesn't believe" in evolution. Unless you know something we don't- perhaps god is the anti-bacterial agent to which bacterial population cannot adapt!
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
I'm way ahead of you. I have, in my possession, a two part nanotechnological design for exactly this. The first nanite is relatively simple, it's a "Y"-shaped machine with "grabbers" tuned to match parts of bacteria and viruses, and one end that's recognized by a larger, more complex nanite that spots the first nanite, and is triggered to destroy the invader by surrounding it and attacking it with a burst of oxidizing chemicals.
I'm not kidding - I've been testing this system for years, and I can report that it works very well...
(see any "Immunology" textbook for further details)...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
According to my Russian wife, she claims most hospitals in Russia control Staph and other nasties using UV lamps placed in hallways and rooms. If the room or hallway is vacated and the doors are shut, the lamps automatically go on killing most of the bacteria without the risk of developing resistance. Other than potential risk of exposure which probably could be kept under control, I think it's a great idea and I'm wondering why aren't US hospitals using it.
-Steve
-- Making computers see, hear, and think... http://www.componica.com/
Actually, I suspect Americans and Canadians may well be #2 and #2, after the Japanese. I've heard news items before about how the Japanese are more culturally clean than we are, and may well be using technology to take it too far. Whereas Americans and Canadians are merely victims of Katzian corporatism because we have so blasted many antibiotic products thrown at us.
As for routine use of antibiotics, there appears to be another downside... The immune system appears to require some level of regular/constant challenge for proper development and maintenance. The news article I heard/saw this one in specifically mentioned the Japanese, and that they were having bad immunological side-effects as a result of being too clean.
As my mother-in-law used to day (in reference to my kids) and appears to be more sensible than might otherwise have been credited, "You'll eat dirt before you die." My wife looks hard to avoid antibiotic handsoaps and other households.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Let's not overlook the most common use of anitbiotics in the US: Feed supplements for live stock. To get an idea of exactly why, look into the system of feedlots as described in _Fast_Food_Nation_. There's some other recent works in the NY Times critical of the beef industry worth reading. The short of it is that because we're raising cattle so contrary to how they evolved, the majority of cattle are susecptible to infections that they never used to get. To control this feedlot operators mix fairly alarming amounts of antibiotics into the feed they give the animals. Although no one's proven a conclusive link to livestock being fed antibiotics and the emergence of resistant bacteria, outfits like the CDC are very worried about the situation. Now I'm not a PETA type, but this alone makes me revaluate my eating habits in terms their long range affects. BTW, I picked up some free range beef recently, and man was that some good stuff. Alternatives exist even if they are more expensive.
Quit looking through my stuff!
Signed,
Your roomate
The discussion came up around the office that if the antibiotics are working against the bacteria, how do they survive to mutate? The answer that we came up with, not being biologists, is that the ones that are mutants and therefore different from the norm, are not affected by the antibiotics. Since they stay around, they propogate their mutation and soon the mutants outnumber the "normal" bacteria. Is that pretty much how it works?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
staph is mostly known for surgical infections, staph is the major cause of post-surgical infections and deaths in the US, particularly Staph. areus. oft you may hear of Methicillin-Resistant Staph. Areus (MRSA) in which vanco/zyvox are considered the only therapeutic alternatives (to nafcillin & broad-spectrum B-lactams), although there are always exceptions to the rule Staph is known primarily for wound-infections...
Strep. Streptococcus is the cause of some wound infections such as the infamous necrotizing fascitis ('flesh-eating bacteria'), but it is mostly known for pneumonia (henceforth the name 'strep pneumo'), and 'strep throat' (group B beta-hemolytic strep (if memory serves me correctly)).
there are generally more alternatives for treating strep than there are for staph, clinically. strep is more sensitive to almost all cephalosporins (or at least used to be), macrolides, and a plethora of other abx that staph is not.
(since i saw this on another post, but am too lazy to make another reply, i'll just add) contrary to some peoples' beliefs most of these infections do not resolve very well on their own, which is much the reason infectious disease was the #1 killer 100 years ago, but is near the bottom of the list today. sure strep throat might eventually be 'fought off' but your chances of phyelonephritis or glomereulonephritis (renal infection) are high enough that you'd probably opt for the abx instead of risking it. if you have a Staph. A infection chances are it's from getting knifed, operated on, or otherwise had your skin broken and your tissue innoculated with its resident bacteria. if this is the case you will _not_ get better by yourself, nor are your chances of 'fighting it off' good enough for anyone to expect you to survive. while it is shown that your body requires immune challenge to maintain its ability to ward off disease, you don't seem me opting for an Ebola innoculation to keep my immunity robust.
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
--I had a staph A infection once. This crap can kill you. It ate chunks of meat right out of my body, took 6 months to get rid of it.
No idea on the store bought antibiotics now, back then it took a long regimen of the heaviest stuff they had.
Topically now I'd first try colloidal silver. I wasn't hip to that stuff back then, but now I am, make it myself. I thought it was snakeoil until I tried it, amazing stuff if used for simple things, ie, don't expect it to be miracle cure all, but for topical infections and for like a gargle, etc it works admirably well. It works much better from personal trials on cuts scrapes skin infections, etc than any of the pharmco creams and lotions I've used, and it's cheap too.
Another problem for standard antibiotics (and antibacterials) is biofilms. These are formed by bacteria as a protective film, that antibiotics and other compounds, such as bleach, cannot easily penetrate. Here's two articles:
9 0/ Horror/Biof.tutorial.HTML
s /b iofilm/biofilm01.htm
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/Courses/biomi2
http://www.edstrom.com/Lab/WaterQualityBulletin
What's even worse is that separate colonies of bacteria, each in their own biofilms, appear to be able to communicate to each other regarding threats. Across small distances of course, I'm not saying they've got mobile phones or anything...
Great, maybe then the infections won't kill you (don't bet on it), but argyria will... If you notice your fingernails and/or skin turning bluish, fellow AC with less brains than identity, seek medical attention immediately, and not from your quack homeopathic practitioner. Don't say you weren't warned.
Some Russian prof was growing them from sewage, and claimed that there was a phage for every nasty bug, they eat them all, then die off. A US company started to work with him to develop them, but the MoneyFuckers withdrew funding because (they they were too thick to see where they could line their own pockets I suppose, and) there was/is more profit in treatments than cures.
May they all catch flesh eating bugs on their nads. And then die.
(the scroogeoids, not the scientists...)
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.