Antibiotic resistance: Why Big Pharma can't combat our second-worst killer
Filed under: Company News, Healthcare
With swine flu giving viruses all the attention, bacteria probably felt a little jealous, because now it's trying to steal the media spotlight with a pandemic of its own. "Antibiotic resistance is an international pandemic that compromises the treatment of all infectious diseases," says a new report from the American Academy of Microbiology. "Resistance essentially is uncontrollable."Pharmaceutical companies were quick to jump on the swine flu (H1N1) bandwagon and develop a vaccine -- attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts from governments around the world in the process. But when it comes to antibiotics and fighting the growing problem of antibacterial resistance, the world doesn't seem as interested. The AAM's findings adds its voice to recent warnings on antibiotic research from the London School of Economics and Political Science, which agrees that Big Pharma needs better incentives for developing antibiotics.
The human and financial tolls
Antibiotic resistance arises mostly from random mutations in the bacteria genes. Some species or subspecies are "naturally resistant"; others develop an "acquired resistance" to antibacterial drugs. Both types can spread their resistance determinants through horizontal gene transfer or replication.
Bacterial and parasitic diseases are the second-leading cause of death worldwide. The LSE reports that 175,000 die from infections acquired in hospitals in Europe every year. ("Antibiotic resistance is never going to go away," the AAM notes.) Yet the number of available antibiotics is declining, because many can no longer combat common diseases. And there's a dire shortage of alternatives.
It gets worse. Drug-resistant superbugs like Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) can't be stopped by traditional antibiotics, making penicillin and its derivatives increasingly obsolete. Childhood pneumonia, dysentery, and tuberculosis no longer respond to first-line antibiotics in some parts of the world.
These diseases create serious economic costs on lost productivity, longer hospital stays, and more expensive treatments. And increasing resistance is erasing the gains (made through massive global spending) on malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV prevention.
Big Pharma's financial motivations
Such heavy social and economic costs -- and such lucrative opportunities for pharmaceutical companies -- would make research and development on vaccines seem like a no-brainer. But pharmaceutical companies don't invest in researching or developing better antibiotics or vaccines, partly because of regulatory issues, and partly because there's little financial incentive. Only a handful of companies have small R&D operations, with few drugs in the first stages of development.
Because developing drugs takes years, the costs of antibiotic discovery and development and the need for long-term clinical trials outweigh any profits. That's why companies prefer developing drugs for chronic diseases, whose customers need the drug for longer terms. But a tougher problem for pharmas is that its product becomes obselete once a resistance is built.
Suggested incentives
Both reports suggest incentives for pharmaceutical companies to invest in antibiotic research. One is to extend the patents given for antibiotics, especially for those aimed at the developing world, which would give the company longer exclusivity on the product and would give the company incentive to manage the disease's resistance to the drug. (Once an antibiotic goes off-patent, pharmas have little financial incentive to manage resistance.)
Experts criticize the U.S. regulatory system -- the "approval process for new antibiotics is unduly time-consuming and expensive" -- and often leaves pharmas hanging. Companies who pay large fees for a speedy process often get flummoxed by the slow-acting FDA to respond (or to change regulations and requirements midstream).
The AAM report also recommends diverting resources to pursue alternative approaches including vaccines, antisense therapy, and public-health initiatives. But much-needed research bridging medical, chemical, and environmental disciplines is often blocked by scientific obstacles that no financial incentives could remove.
In addition, the experts recommend several strategies to deal with the problem, including improved diagnostics, surveillance, control and containment, communication, guidance and implementation of "judicious and prudent use" of antibiotics, and control of generic antibiotics. This way, while resistance "will always prevail," at least we will "coexist."
The road ahead
Given the AAM's finding that "it's virtually impossible to conceive of any solution, or combination of solutions, that will have a significant global impact," our hopes lie with Sweden, pushing for legislation on antibiotic development in Europe. Swedish officials will also meet with U.S. counterparts in December to push for U.S. legislation.
Other signs of progress are emerging. Swiss-based Basilea Pharmaceutica, one of the few pharmaceutical companies concentrating on antibiotic development, recently began selling an antibiotic against MRSA and other superbugs in a few markets, and it has submitted applications with U.S. and European authorities. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has an Antibacterial Discovery Performance Unit, and some pharmas have indeed tried to aide the developing world in different ways. With the patent cliff approaching and pharmas looking to supplement lost revenue, steering them toward the developing world could be useful to all.



























Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-17-2009 @ 10:10AM
DoulosXp said...
Antibiotics in cattle feed makes for rapid weight gain. The limits for antibiotics are regulated by the government. Thus, these feeds need to be tested. There are small labs around the mid-west. The tests consistently found "normal" levels of antibiotics. If they are not found to be normal the feed company simply uses a lab that gets the results they desire. My son, head of one of these labs, was fired because he refused to enter false findings. To show he was right he sent samples to university labs to verify his findings.
Someone needs to look into this. It creates a very serious health risk for anyone who consumes beef.
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 6:55PM
Alle Beers said...
Not only are the drugs we have in the marketplace not working to stop infections, but are providing mutation infections. We should stop giving perscriptons for every time we get a cold or a sore throat. Gargle with warm salt water, wash your hands and don't use soaps that are called bacterialcidal, Each time we use them some of the agents are absorbed into our body.
Reply
10-17-2009 @ 1:05AM
Dr Kadiyali M Srivatsa said...
History repeats, in 1980s we were talking about MRSA spreading in Paediatrics when the media started giving more attention to HIV & AIDS. Now it is unfortunately H1N1 (Swine flu).
We also know MRSA is likely to be the killer of patients who contract Swine flu yet the multinationals and the WHO has focused more and invested on developing vaccination. I feel sad the medical professionals are helplessly sitting and watching this drama unfold.
I warned medical device manufacturers that bacteria are like us human and we must start treating them with respect. If we don't the day will come when we will perish soon from this planet earth.
Please Watch This Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-lxWqP1JJk
Reply
10-17-2009 @ 12:30PM
Jim Bynum said...
Community acquired MRSA infections have exploded in the past 20 years. Hospital stays increased from 1,900 in 1991 to 368,000 in 2005 with almost 19,000 deaths. While the trend is to blame agricultural use of antibiotics or the misuse of antibiotic by doctors, in 1982 EPA discovered resistant genes were being transferred between bacteria in sewage treatment plants and were picked up by drinking water treatment plants. Many species of bacteria have become more deadly as they cycle through treatment plants.
Much of the treated sewage streams called recycled water and sludge (biosolids) containing antibiotic resistant bacteria are used to irrigate and fertilize food crops, parks, school grounds, home lawns and gardens. There is currently no treatment process in use to kill the pathogenic microoganisms in recycled water or sludge. Our health has been deliberately put at risk for a cheap method of sewage disposal. Of course this could be a crude form of population control?
http://thewatchers.us/MRSA.html
http://deadlydeceit.com/necrotizingf.html
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/help-ban-sludge
Reply