WHO says world poised for 'post-antibiotic' era

[NobleSavage]

The 'post-antibiotic' era is near, according to a report released today by the World Health Organization (WHO). The decreasing effectiveness of antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents is a global problem, and a surveillance system should be established to monitor it, the group says.

There is nothing hopeful in the WHO's report, which pulls together data from 129 member states to show extensive resistance to antimicrobial agents in every region of the world. Overuse of antibiotics in agriculture — to promote livestock growth — and in hospitals quickly leads to proliferation of drug-resistant bacteria, which then spread via human travel and poor sanitation practices.

“A post-antibiotic era — in which common infections and minor injuries can kill — far from being an apocalyptic fantasy, is instead a very real possibility for the twenty-first century,” writes Keiji Fukuda, WHO assistant director-general for health security, in a foreword to the report.

http://www.nature.com/news/who-warns-against-post-antibiotic-era-1.15135

This isn't good.

 

[Nexus]

The most sensible thing to do right now would be prohibit antibiotics in livestock.

 

[ramoss]

Recently, the FDA asked the feed producers to stop including antibodics in their product. 25 out of the 26 volentarily agreed.

We should do what norway did. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-drugs-stop-working-norways-answer/

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Is it too early to say we're fucked? I need at least some reassurance about this.

 

[bilby]

Recently, the FDA asked the feed producers to stop including antibodics in their product. 25 out of the 26 volentarily agreed.

We should do what norway did. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-drugs-stop-working-norways-answer/

You can't go around doing stuff that is effective. Evidence has no place in healthcare; it is all about patient freedom.

Never mind that the patients are completely unqualified to determine the best treatment for their condition; never mind that what little information they have comes from advertising run by pharmaceutical corporations; if somebody is feeling a little unwell, and given that antibiotics cure diseases, they have every right to demand that they be given the latest and most expensive antibiotics on the market. After all, if it costs more, it must make you better faster, right?

If we start letting the healthcare system do what is best for patient health, with scant regard for profits, where will it all end? Don't you have any sympathy for the shareholders of Pfizer, Glaxo-Smithkline or Merck? Those shareholders have families, you know. What kind of monster would rob them of a small fraction of their wealth, just to save a few thousand measly lives?

 

[Underseer]

Well, this day came sooner because we consumers had to buy a bunch of useless products with antibiotic properties (e.g. aerosol fragrances).

 

[bilby]

Well, this day came sooner because we consumers had to buy a bunch of useless products with antibiotic properties (e.g. aerosol fragrances).

I have never heard of aerosol fragrances made with antibiotics. Antibacterial agents such as ethanol, sure. But not antibiotics. Is that really a thing?

 

[Perspicuo]

The most sensible thing to do right now would be prohibit antibiotics in livestock.

Cannot, unless they change the way they are heaped together unsanitarily and inhumanely. If the whole system doesn't change there will be unbelievable pandemics among cattle. So, since it would take loads of $$$, it is unlikely to happen.

 

[rjh01]

Well, this day came sooner because we consumers had to buy a bunch of useless products with antibiotic properties (e.g. aerosol fragrances).

I have never heard of aerosol fragrances made with antibiotics. Antibacterial agents such as ethanol, sure. But not antibiotics. Is that really a thing?

Do not know about sprays but I do know about antibiotic soaps. Pity they are almost worthless. Plus bring the day when antibiotics are worthless as well closer.

 

[Valjean]

I wonder if anyone is working on alternatives.

 

[rousseau]

I wonder if anyone is working on alternatives.

People have been working on and finding alternatives for years. The problem is that alternatives are getting harder to come by. When bacteria reproduce every 20 minutes to a few hours, their rate of evolution is a little ... too fast.

 

[Perspicuo]

I bet our household roaches are super-roaches by now.

Fuck science. What we need now is magic. Support research at Hogwarts!

 

[Valjean]

In the early 20th century phage therapy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy ) was a promising new modality, but with the advent of antibiotics research tapered off. Antibiotics were quick, cheap and easy. Phage therapy was more complicated. Eventually it was all but forgotten.

 

[Perspicuo]

The problem with phage therapy is on that webpage:

The high bacterial strain specificity of phage therapy may make it necessary for clinics to make different cocktails for treatment of the same infection or disease because the bacterial components of such diseases may differ from region to region or even person to person.

In addition, due to the specificity of individual phages, for a high chance of success, a mixture of phages is often applied. This means that 'banks' containing many different phages must be kept and regularly updated with new phages.

Further, bacteria can evolve different receptors either before or during treatment; this can prevent the phages from completely eradicating the bacteria.

The need for banks of phages makes regulatory testing for safety harder and more expensive. Such a process would make it difficult for large-scale production of phage therapy. Additionally, patent issues (specifically on living organisms) may complicate distribution for pharmaceutical companies wishing to have exclusive rights over their "invention", making it unlikely that a for-profit corporation will invest capital in the widespread application of this technology.

As has been known for at least thirty years, mycobacteria such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis have specific bacteriophages.[39] No lytic phage has yet been discovered for Clostridium difficile, which is responsible for many nosocomial diseases, but some temperate phages (integrated in the genome) are known for this species, which opens encouraging avenues.

To work, the virus has to reach the site of the bacteria, and viruses do not necessarily reach the same places that antibiotics can reach.

Funding for phage therapy research and clinical trials is generally insufficient and difficult to obtain, since it is a lengthy and complex process to patent bacteriophage products. Scientists comment that 'the biggest hurdle is regulatory', whereas an official view is that individual phages would need proof individually because it would be too complicated to do as a combination, with many variables. Due to the specificity of phages, phage therapy would be most effective with a cocktail injection, which is generally rejected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Researchers and observers predict that for phage therapy to be successful the FDA must change its regulatory stance on combination drug cocktails. Public awareness and education about phage therapy are generally limited to scientific or independent research rather than mainstream media.

The negative public perception of viruses may also play a role in the reluctance to embrace phage therapy.

And those are not all the dangers. Continue reading.

 

[Valjean]

This is why research was abandoned.
A pill was so quick, cheap and easy. Phage therapy was a lot more complicated but was often effective. I see it and other alternative approaches as viable possibilities should antibiotics become generally ineffective.

 

[Celldweller]

Recently, the FDA asked the feed producers to stop including antibodics in their product. 25 out of the 26 volentarily agreed.

We should do what norway did. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-drugs-stop-working-norways-answer/

You can't go around doing stuff that is effective. Evidence has no place in healthcare; it is all about patient freedom.

Never mind that the patients are completely unqualified to determine the best treatment for their condition; never mind that what little information they have comes from advertising run by pharmaceutical corporations; if somebody is feeling a little unwell, and given that antibiotics cure diseases, they have every right to demand that they be given the latest and most expensive antibiotics on the market. After all, if it costs more, it must make you better faster, right?


If we start letting the healthcare system do what is best for patient health, with scant regard for profits, where will it all end? Don't you have any sympathy for the shareholders of Pfizer, Glaxo-Smithkline or Merck? Those shareholders have families, you know. What kind of monster would rob them of a small fraction of their wealth, just to save a few thousand measly lives?

Hang on a second here. Blame pharma all you want but the ultimate failure lies in the training (here in the U.S. anyway) with physicians, taught to approach illness treatment with evidenced based decision making as quickly as possible. Their answers, unfortunately, lie in throwing pills at patients at alarming quantities (also an epidemic with pain killers and mental health pharmaceuticals). Remember, the average internal medicine doc has roughly 10-15 minutes per consult where they need to address a battery of issues, quickly. Hence, tons of prescriptions, out the door, next patient.

All the advertising and pharma marketing may be obnoxious but again, it's the physician who writes the script, not the patient. Unfortunately, homeopathic physicians are a rarity and much of their treatment regimens lean on a "natural supplements" industry which is terribly regulated and rarely held to the same rigors of clinical trials as the Pharma giants.

 

[Valjean]

There's a degree of culpability in the medical establishment, to be sure. But let's not forget that, pound for pound, most of the antibiotics in the US are used on livestock.

 

[Celldweller]

I wonder if anyone is working on alternatives.

People have been working on and finding alternatives for years. The problem is that alternatives are getting harder to come by. When bacteria reproduce every 20 minutes to a few hours, their rate of evolution is a little ... too fast.

Not very aggressively..

http://http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-19/health/ct-met-antibiotics-pipeline-20130319_1_drug-resistant-tuberculosis-resistant-bacteria-ketek

""The market for a new antibiotic is very small, the rewards are not there and so the capital is not flowing," said Paul Stoffels, pharmaceuticals head at Johnson & Johnson. "In cancer, people pay $30,000, $50,000 or $80,000 (per patient) for a drug, but for an antibiotic it is likely to be only a few hundred dollars.""

 

[Underseer]

Well, this day came sooner because we consumers had to buy a bunch of useless products with antibiotic properties (e.g. aerosol fragrances).

I have never heard of aerosol fragrances made with antibiotics. Antibacterial agents such as ethanol, sure. But not antibiotics. Is that really a thing?

I was thinking of Lysol and the like.

 

[bilby]

Well, this day came sooner because we consumers had to buy a bunch of useless products with antibiotic properties (e.g. aerosol fragrances).

I have never heard of aerosol fragrances made with antibiotics. Antibacterial agents such as ethanol, sure. But not antibiotics. Is that really a thing?

I was thinking of Lysol and the like.

The active ingredient in many of the Lysol products is benzalkonium chloride. The active ingredient in the Lysol Power and Free line is hydrogen peroxide.

Antibacterials, but not antibiotics.