Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can We Fight Drug-Resistant Bacteria With Non-Antibiotic Drugs? (economist.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the going-viral dept.

Slashdot reader Bruce66423 shares what researchers learned by studying the effect of drugs on bacteria in the gut: The research reveals that it's not just antibiotics that have the effect of causing resistance to antibiotics. "Of the drugs in the study, 156 were antibacterials (144 antibiotics and 12 antiseptics). But a further 835, such as painkillers and blood-pressure pills, were not intended to harm bacteria. Yet almost a quarter (203) did....

"However, Dr Maier's study also brings some good news for the fight against antimicrobial resistance. Some strains she looked at which were resistant to antibiotics nevertheless succumbed to one or more of the non-antibiotic drugs thrown at them. This could be a starting point for the development of new antimicrobial agents which would eliminate bacteria that have proved intractable to other means."
Every drug the researchers tested has already been approved for human use -- which means they could all eventually be used as a second wave of antibiotics.

31 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. To be fair... by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not that the antidepressants directly harm bacteria. It's just it makes a lot of depressed bacteria feel capable enough to go ahead and commit suicide.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. No by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Can We Fight Drug-Resistant Bacteria With Non-Antibiotic Drugs?

    You might be able to fight antibiotic resistant ones, though.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:No by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the summary and particularly the title are pretty misleading here.

      What the research shows is that non-antimicrobial drugs contribute to the development of antimicrobial resistance. The bit about using these drugs as starting points for developing novel antimicrobials is an idea for further research.

      This is a typical news media practice: give what appears to be good news equal weight to the bad news, thus producing "balance". As a result people come away with the wrong impression.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At the end of the day, the standard practice of routinely blanketing factory farm animals with antibiotics will continue unabated.

      Nothing will be done to prevent the pandemic. We are creating this problem with your eyes wide open, all in the name of abundant, cheap dinner meat.

  3. "killing bacteria without antibiotics" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    reminded me of this clip:

    https://youtu.be/VDJehCXMKwI?t...

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  4. We can develop new antibiotics... by Hrrrg · · Score: 1

    It would be great if some drugs we already have could also fight infections. However, we can also develop new antibiotics. We have genetic and molecular biology tools that are light years ahead of what was available when the current crop of antibiotics was developed. Every time a protein mutates so that an antibiotic no longer binds to it, we could develop a new antibiotic that binds to the new protein. This war will never be won, but we don't have to lose it either. All that is lacking is the financial incentive to develop these medications. Because the private sector won't do it, it seems to be that it should become the mission of a government agency such as the NIH.

    1. Re:We can develop new antibiotics... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If developing antibiotics would be so easy we had not a million death per year world wide to antibiotic resistent bacteria.

      Actually: we don't know at all how antibiotics work, we only have like 3 classes of antibiotica, and in each class less than a hand full of substances. Bottom line we have around 20 antibiotics at the moment. And thats it!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:We can develop new antibiotics... by muridae · · Score: 1

      From that link:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      6 major classes of antibiotics in this group alone. Unless you are really picky and count Gentamicin and Doxycycline in the same class; having had both the difference is noticeable and cross-resistance is not too high.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Five or more classes, depending on how you divide things up. Sure, beta-lactams cover a huge range, but the cross resistance between Penams and Cephalosporin/Cephamycin is usually pretty low. Then the big guns like Vancomycin in a class of it's own, and the carbapenems somewhere in-between.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Several more classes here. The whole Sulpha family of antibiotics, the whole quinolone group (maybe there is a split between the fluoro- and the non-fluoro-, I haven't had much experience with the non-fluoro group), the two nitro: furan and imidazole, and the rifamycin family.

      All said, there are a lot more drugs out there. Many aren't used because of the side-effects or because they are held back for last resort use. There is also the massive problem of penicillin and sulpha allergies, though some studies have shown that many cases of childhood allergic response to penicillin is a one-time thing and the drugs can be useful later in life. The whole Oxazolidinone family is full of active research, the problems with Linezolid is that it is a strong MAOI; hugh number of side effects and interactions with other drugs, and foods. Wiki sites that it is popular now because patients can be switched from IV to oral sooner, since Linezolid is available in an oral form; but that pill form was very expensive ten years ago when I had to pay $1000 for two 500mg pills, which made the stuff something like 18 times the cost of gold or somewhere near the by-weight-cost of inkjet ink.
      And then there is the 5th generation cephalosporin drugs, a few being useful against pseudomonas and klebsiella (notoriously limited in the drugs they even respond to) as well as staph A. even when it is MRSA.

      So, there is a lot of cutting edge research and new drugs out there. Unfortunately, not all of them are available in the USA right now.

  5. Re:Painkillers kill bacteria? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The reason we no longer have the old system is that a good country has been defeated by self-righteous statists.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  6. Phages by Archtech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bacteriophages are a good partial answer. Viruses that prey on and destroy specific bacteria, they have some great advantages along with their limitations.

    On the plus side, they are tailored for one specific strain of bacterium and kill those alone. What's more, they usually kill virtually all of them. Then the viruses have nothing to attack, and go dormant. There is no question - as far as I know, so far - of bacteria developing resistance. The phage's attack is extremely basic - rather like an anti-tank shot. They just bore into the bacterium, commandeer its DNA and start churning out more phages.

    Also, the specificity means that a phage is extremely focused in its effects. None of the huge overkill of antibiotics, which - as their name implies - are pretty hostile to all living material.

    The downside is significant, but manageable. Each phage kills only one type of bacterium, so you need to create a library of phages. An institute in Tbilisi, Georgia had such a library in Soviet times; I don't know how much of its stock has survived. It could be built up again at fairly low cost.

    Since the bacteria against which antibiotics fail are quite few in number so far, it should be feasible to develop phages fast enough to keep up with them.

    Perhaps the biggest problem lies in the absence of vast undeserved profits. That's the main reason why the Western world went overboard on antibiotics in the first place, leading to undeserved neglect of other antibacterial techniques.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    1. Re:Phages by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Perhaps the biggest problem lies in the absence of vast undeserved profits. That's the main reason why the Western world went overboard on antibiotics in the first place,

      No that's utter bullshit. The reason we went nuts on them is they're extremely effective and have saved vast numbers of lives. They over took phage therapy because thye were much more reliable. The reason we haven't gone wholesale on bacteriophages is a reason you already identified:

      Also, the specificity means that a phage is extremely focused in its effects. None of the huge overkill of antibiotics, which - as their name implies - are pretty hostile to all living material. The downside is significant, but manageable. Each phage kills only one type of bacterium, so you need to create a library of phages.

      That's the thing, really, and it has more downsides than you realise.

      In order to use phages you need to be able to easily identify the infecting bacteria. Doing that on the scale at which infections are treated is a vast undertaking. It's one which can ultimately be fixed with technology, but being able to do it rapidly and effectively is only currently available for a few bacteria. Then you need huge stocks because you need a different phage for each bacteria, also a large undertaking.

      And finally, antibiotics are often used prior to any specific evidence of an infection after surgery or a bite with a high likelihood of infection. Those are much harder cases to deal with for phage therapy.

      IOW this isn' some dumbbass western consipracy.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Phages by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      With western world you mean the USA.
      In Europe we have strict laws how to handle antibiotics, e.g. you can not by them in a drug store.
      On the other hand people are stupid, because they can not buy them, they think it is smart to only use half the package and keep the rest in reserve for "self treatment".
      The answer to that is now antibiotics with depot effect, you only get 3 pills, to take one each day. The effect of the pills lasts for 8 - 10 days.
      But likely just a matter of time till people again only take one pill and "safe" the others for "emergencies".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Phages by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In order to use phages you need to be able to easily identify the infecting bacteria.
      Which is actually super easy ...

      IOW this isn' some dumbbass western consipracy.
      No, it is dumbass western lazyness ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Phages by mikael · · Score: 1

      "And finally, antibiotics are often used prior to any specific evidence of an infection after surgery or a bite with a high likelihood of infection. Those are much harder cases to deal with for phage therapy."

      There is another problem. The agricultural industry have grown used to feeding livestock with antibiotics because it makes the animals grow larger and fetch a better price at the market. Then doctors prescribe people antibiotics on the chance that a sore throat might be an infection. Then some patients don't complete their course of antibiotics and the country ends up with antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Phages by ch0knuti · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting the medium in which they will have to act. We are not talking about bacteria on a Petri dish but bacteria that is in a human body, which has an immune system that does not take kindly to foreign objects, beneficial or not. So for these custom bacteriophages to work they will have to kill their targets faster than the immune system would kill them. Kind of reduces their effectiveness IMHO.

    6. Re: Phages by Archtech · · Score: 1

      You are also not going to pay any more for your meat than you absolutely have to.

      Why do people like you always assume that they have this superhuman power of knowing what others think?

      As it happens I, for one, consider healthy nourishing food one of the most important and valuable items I buy. Not only am I "willing" to pay more for my meat "than I absolutely have to"; I insist on doing so.

      Obviously, healthy beef, mutton and venison from well-treated, grass-fed animals kept out of doors in a pleasant natural habitat costs much more than meat from wretched beasts huddled indoors, never seeing the sun, standing all day (and night) in pools of their own manure, and fed on ghastly concoctions of artificial "feed".

      Obviously, too, those unhealthy beasts are going to succumb like flies to infection unless they are stuffed with antibiotics. Whereas it's very unwise to eat any meat from an animal that has been given antibiotics even once. (Or fed on trash like soya, ground-up sea-bottom creatures, and vile polyunsaturated oils).

      It may be an American trait to think of food as fungible. (So many calories, so many dollars). That is how nutrition science began in the 18th century, when the laws of thermodynamics had just been discovered and employers were keen to find the cheapest diet that would give their workers enough energy to get their tasks done. (Sugar was thought the best solution).

      Now that more is known about the history of nutrition, what our ancestors ate, and the biochemistry of metabolism at the cellular level, it is obvious that food is absolutely not fungible. And only someone who is very poor indeed, or very unwise indeed, seeks the very cheapest foods.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  7. Haha but this whole question is nonsense by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An "antibiotic" is "a medicine that inhibits the growth of or destroys microorganisms".

    So if it inhibits or destroys bacteria, it's an antibiotic, whether you traditionally think of it as one or not.

    A better article title would have been something like: "Some existing medicines used for other conditions are found to act as antibiotics". Boring but less misleading.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  8. Just say no to drugs... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    I'm not against antibiotics (anti-antibiotic) but there are other ways of killing off bacteria. One we use on our farm is heat.

    We raise pigs out on pastureâ and as such I tend toward avoiding antibiotics unless proscribed by a vet to cure a particular problem in a particular pig. Since a vet an a course of antibiotics costs so much that virtually never happens.

    All bacteria are susceptible to overheating. Death by hot tub we call it. The trick is that animals, like you and I as well as pigs, are also killed by overheating. But, there is a zone where you can turn the tide of the war between the animal's immune system and the invaders by applying heat. With pigs that are small enough we literally hot tub them, that is to say in a bucket of warm water carefully monitoring them and saving their lives without resorting to drugs.

    I use the same sort of thing on myself for cuts and it is ver effective.

    This is not to say I won't go to the doctor and get antibiotics as needed, just that there are alternatives to drugs. More thought needs to be put into that.

    âYes, pigs do eat grass but pasture is also a lot of other forages like clovers, etc. People all too often get stuck on "pigs aren't cows and can't eat grass" which is incorrect.

    1. Re:Just say no to drugs... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's called a fever. Works sometimes. It's been tried in humans and has had limited efficacy.

      But a reasonable point is not to treat a fever unless the symptoms of the fever are really bothersome. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Just say no to drugs... by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm well aware of what it is called. The difference is, I can learn from Mother Nature and improve on her methods. She sometimes goes overboard and kills the patient with the remedy (too high a fever).

    3. Re:Just say no to drugs... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      She sometimes goes overboard and kills the patient with the remedy (too high a fever)

      I asked a few doctors about that and did some searching. While it does happen, it only happens when the brain is already damaged and not working correctly or a very young child and their body still isn't developed enough to manage temperature properly. I asked the ER and my regular doctor because I went into the ER one night when I spiked to 104.5f (40.3c) and my finger nails started to turn purple. By the time I got to the ER, everything was going back to normal. I described the situation to the ER doctor and they said that's normal and unless I have had brain damage or have some sort of family history of death by fever, not to worry. Said healthy adults dying or brain damaged from fevers is a Hollywood thing, or a rare drug reaction.

      I'm not sure at what point a person's body is mature enough, but by adulthood(18), your body should never cause a deadly fever. *My understanding. If you don't feel well, go to the doctor

  9. Rotate The Shield Frequencies. by Templer421 · · Score: 1

    Take some of the antibiotics out of use for 20 years and let vulnerabilities reestablish themselves.

    Start using those again and take another group out of use for 20 years.

    1. Re:Rotate The Shield Frequencies. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Which is how we're doing it now.

    2. Re:Rotate The Shield Frequencies. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Chloramphenicoland Rifampinare two that come to mind. The former is a very broad spectrum, very potent antibiotic that fell out of favor because it tended to wipe out the blood forming system. But judicious use is coming back.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  10. A small wonder has happened. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    For once Betteridge is wrong and we can answer the question with 'Yes'.

  11. How about fire? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure fire kills bacteria, so how about flamethrowers? (Predictably, Elon is ahead of the curve on this.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  12. And bats could just fly over the top by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I just thought it looked badly phrased.

    Can we overwhelm mammal resistant fortifications with non-pig mammals? Rather depends which mammals they're resistant against, doesn't it?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Phage therapy by BeCre8iv · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy

    That is all.

    --
    This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
  14. Mod parent up.... by BeCre8iv · · Score: 1

    And spend a fraction of the military budget on an _actuial_ existencial threat.

    --
    This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
  15. Targeted alpha therapy (TAT) by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 1

    Targeted alpha therapy has the potential to eliminate omni-resistant bacteria, as well as inoperable cancers and viruses like HIV. It arms a targeting biomolecule with a potent alpha emitter that will ensure their destruction. Unlike with antibiotics and other drugs, there is no way for the offending organisms to evolve a resistance.

    The technique has shown great promise, but research is limited by the availability of actinium-225 and bismuth-213, for which there are no good substitutes. Fortunately, they are a byproduct of energy from thorium, and this article also contains some detail on medical applications. Today though, there is only a very small amount to work with, from the dwindling remains of earlier thorium efforts.

    These invaluable isotopes fall on the neptunium decay chain, which while once present in nature, went extinct on earth long ago. They are inextricably linked to the thorium fuel cycle, and LFTR is the ideal machine to reproduce their precursor in quantity, and allow its extraction during normal operation.

  16. Re:Consider bio-resonance by edis · · Score: 1

    Mr. Moderator, have you had suggested reading and thinking, reconsidered statement made, before applying your quick evaluation, most likely based on poor representation of the idea to your mind and experience? Poor victim of hurry, don't be that silly.

    --
    Servant of karma