'Without Action on Antibiotics, Medicine Will Return To the Dark Ages' (theguardian.com)

Four years ago professor Sally Davies, England's chief medical officer, gave the world a sombre warning of the growing threat posed by bacteria evolving resistance to life-saving antibiotics. If this were left unaddressed, she argued, it would lead to the erosion of modern medicine as we know it. Doctors and scientists had long warned of the problem, but few outside medicine were taking real heed. Consumption of antibiotics rose 36% between 2000 and 2010, writes Ed Whiting, director of policy and chief of staff at Wellcome, a biomedical research charity based in London. He notes that much of the progress in the field is yet to be made: We urgently need new antibiotics. No new classes of antibiotics have been approved since the early 1980s. Between 1940 and 1962 about 20 classes were produced, but industry backing has decreased significantly since that golden age. The pipeline of new treatments is all but dry, the void fast exploited by resistant bacteria. A concerning number are now resistant to drugs reserved as the last line of defence, and the most vulnerable are in greatest danger -- the young, old and critically ill. Blood infections caused by drug-resistant microbes kill more than 200,000 newborn babies each year. The reason for the lack of interest from the pharmaceutical industry is simple: the economics don't add up. Developing new antibiotics is scientifically challenging, time-consuming and costly. The medicines we so badly need cannot be allowed to be sold in volume; they must be conserved for real need, with fair access guaranteed. This limits their retail value. Many early-stage projects will fail, making them a risky bet. Even those that are successful will take at least a decade to produce medicines that are safe for human use.

Comments

Markets...

[beheaderaswp]

Oh... you mean markets cannot solve every problem on the planet?

Maybe if we spent a bunch of government grant money on the problem we could make it better?

Naw... the market always works... right? It's not like penicillin was discovered at St Mary's Hospital using government money.

Wait.... It was.

Re:Markets...

[interkin3tic]

We could take a huge chunk of the threat out by intelligently regulating antibiotic use in farm animals. But I've been accused of being an evil socialist elitist bent on destroying all american jobs. Why do I hate jobs and love big government so much? Why can't I just accept that jobs heal all sickness, we don't need laws, just jobs jobs jobs jobs?

Re:Markets...

[interkin3tic]

It does indeed sound like at least some libertarians argue antibiotics are the only medicine government should regulate.

But as an excuse, relevant industries definitely would argue "it'll solve itself" or close enough. Big agriculture lobbyists are likely arguing that to republican lawmakers right now, saying "look, we've 'voluntarily' reduced our use of the emergency antibiotics, so we don't really need to go *chuckle* 'organic' right? We'll take steps to reduce it on our own while saving jobs in your district, hint hint."

The claim doctors make is similar: "People are demanding antibiotics less, we just need to educate the people (who are ignorant and stubborn enough to still be demanding antibiotics for every cough and thus are never going to listen). If I tell them no, they'll just go to someone who will say yes! It's hard being a doctor!" Somehow that's the justification I get when I say "Hey, how about we put doctors in jail for prescribing antibiotics without a lab test showing it's bacterial?"

So yes, I think it's worth pointing out that the free market will never solve any problem more complex than "Which of these apples are cheaper?" because people ARE that ignorant, and selfish interested parties DO suggest the problem will solve itself.

Re:Markets...

[dargaud]

Plus, the antibiotics given to animals are very weak so you're comparing apples and oranges.

No. It's now be proven that some antibiotic resistances came from particular farms. And they are not 'weak': they are supposedly given in small quantities, but the 5$-hour workers shoveling it in the feeds don't necessarily respect the quantities. When you know that without antibiotics 1 out of 9 skin infections in humans lead to death, you really have to wonder if feeding this to cows is worth it.

Re:Markets...

[PPH]

the antibiotics given to animals are very weak

That's bad. Very bad. Because now you've created an environment which knocks off the weak strains of bacteria making room for more robust strains. If you can't administer something strong enough to kill them all, just don't bother.

How about giving farm animals a bit more living space? And more of that outdoors. So when a chicken gets sick, they don't pass it to half a million other chickens crammed in the same factory.

other therapies

[DrYak]

The worst part is, if a new antibiotics is discovered, it might help you right now, but after a couple of year, because of over use(*), the bacteria will eventually evolve some resistance against it. So the next patient with the same kind of infection will be again in the same situation...

Maybe time to dust off alternative therapies, like phage therapy ? (**)
Cue in citation of your favorite strategist (Churchill, Sun-Tzu, Machiavelli, etc.) commenting about the millennia-old proverb that the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

---

(*) : over-prescription, industrial/agricultural use, etc.

(**) : phage are like viruses but specialize in infecting bacteria. So phage therapy is basically curing your sickness, by making your sickness itself sick, with its own sickness, in a kind of pathogen-ception.

Re:other therapies

[Wootery]

It depends. It's pretty rare for a bug to be resistant to all available antibiotics.

Give it time.

proper management of antibiotic use reduces the threat significantly.

We don't have proper management. Hence the article, no?

Two small comments

[bradley13]

First, get antibiotics out of agriculture, where they're given _all_ _the_ _time_ as a preventative measure. Stupid.

Second, why exactly should access be "fair"? TFA complains on moment that there's no economic incentive, and then promptly demands fairness. Get real. Life isn't fair. But what the rich can buy today will be available to the rest of us tomorrow.

Re:Please

[rworne]

Saying you see no problem with someone getting an infection is very very far from threatening political violence.

The poster said nothing about "getting" an infection. The poster said they would not see anything wrong with "giving" him an infection. There's a difference between wishing ill on someone and supporting the idea of actively causing harm to someone.